6 inch thick WTC I -Beam Bent like a Horseshoe only a Thermodynamics,Nuclear Fusion,

Further evidence of tremendous heat can be seen in this 8 ton 6" thick I beam that is bent like a horseshoe without warping, kinking or splitting. no cracking
(Again, there is no way for thermate to create this horseshoe, unless it is "miraculous" thermate. Clearly, this is residual steel that has been exposed to massive and intense heat that is entirely consistent with a Thermodynamics,Nuclear Fusion, Electromagnetic Radiation, Kinetic Energy and virtually nothing else can produce this single effect, let alone this and ALL the other irregularities

That dosent mean they didnt use nano thermite for something else guys

video1


video2

Dr. Judy Wood isn't sounding so crazy now....

reply to post by bigbomb456


Dr Judy she is far from crazy
Professor James Fetzer Interviews Dr. Judy Wood on June 27th 2006

Google Video Link

reply to post by Abrahm


Hey Abrahm. If the 'hutchinson effect' really exists, a prerequisite of the theory would surely be to explain the interaction on a particle level. So, we have an iron and carbon lattice primarily, how does the hutchinson effect affect this? It has to break the molecular bonds so we already have a lower limit on energy output (hint: it's absolutely insanely high, and Judy Wood knows as much).

What is the mechanism behind it? Surely you know, surely you're not just believing people who have been considered con artists for years?

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow

Further evidence of tremendous heat can be seen in this 8 ton 6" thick I beam that is bent like a horseshoe without warping, kinking or splitting. no cracking
(Again, there is no way for thermate to create this horseshoe, unless it is "miraculous" thermate. Clearly, this is residual steel that has been exposed to massive and intense heat that is entirely consistent with a Thermodynamics,Nuclear Fusion, Electromagnetic Radiation, Kinetic Energy and virtually nothing else can produce this single effect, let alone this and ALL the other irregularities

That dosent mean they didnt use nano thermite for something else guys

What is this evidence of?



Thank you

i would like to know just where these bent 6" beams and other twisted & contorted metal
angle irons & I Beams were located in the structure of the 30 year old Twin Towers.


were they installed above the 40th floor.... or at the basement levels.?
was the metal analyzed to see if it was the proper alloy for the strength specs required?

all those points are to be considered... other wise we are looking at the equivelent
of a piece of straw penetrating a metal STOP sign in the aftermath of a tornado

an anomaly...nothing more

I've worked in machine trades my entire life and have taken courses on metallurgy and worked machining steel in many different ways in that time. I can assure you that steel can bend, just like copper under the right forces and conditions, without heat. It's mechanical properties allow for that. It is known as its 'yield strength'. If that I-beam was further connected to a large mass of material, such as a curtain wall or heavy structure as it was falling, while being held firmly, then it can be bent easily within the range of strength the steel's property holds.

This is not evidence of a conspiracy in and of itself.

reply to post by ben91069

Not questioning your experience Ben, but surly there would be stress fractures (ripping) showing on the face of the "then" horizontal beams, I was shown a stress test on a thermite weld on a 50kg railway "string" and the weld held but the track ripped like an orange peel (best way to describe it), I know there was a colossal amount of pressure but i cant get my head round that the heat weakened these beams so much, So causing the (alleged) structural failure.. remember 48 beams interlocked with concrete and rebare and the electrical conduits with 415 volt cables (the really big buggers), and we are lead to believe an aeroplane fuselage ripped clean through ?? all that mass..

Originally posted by foxhoundone
reply to post by ben91069

 

Not questioning your experience Ben, but surly there would be stress fractures (ripping) showing on the face of the "then" horizontal beams, I was shown a stress test on a thermite weld on a 50kg railway "string" and the weld held but the track ripped like an orange peel (best way to describe it), I know there was a colossal amount of pressure but i cant get my head round that the heat weakened these beams so much, So causing the (alleged) structural failure.. remember 48 beams interlocked with concrete and rebare and the electrical conduits with 415 volt cables (the really big buggers), and we are lead to believe an aeroplane fuselage ripped clean through ?? all that mass..

Not necessarily. All steels are not the same, they come in as many grades as colors of the rainbow. A railway track, for example is not the same kind of steel you would want to use for a building. A railroad track needs to have strength and hardness, because of the weight of trains bearing down upon it would surely deform the rail after prolonged use. When steel is made to give it more hardness, it generally sacrifices it's malleability which means when you bend it, it fractures rather than bends smoothly.

A piece of steel used in modern skyscraper structural steel would be a grade such as A36. Here is a Wikipedia entry for the general characteristics of A36. You'll note at the bottom of the page is a citation it was drawn from, which will give you a more comprehensive comparison of different steel types and grades according to ASTM:

General mechanic properties of A36 steel per Wikipedia

Originally posted by foxhoundone
Not questioning your experience Ben, but surly there would be stress fractures (ripping) showing on the face of the "then" horizontal beams,

This is basically correct. I don't have enough information to identify the location of that beam within the towers, but the lack of obvious fracture would tend to indicate it had been heated significantly before collapse. Given its curve, and given the lack of fractures, I would very very tentatively guess that it was a corner column in WTC2, one of the two on the opposite side of the impact. I stress that this is purely a very slightly educated guess.

I was shown a stress test on a thermite weld on a 50kg railway "string" and the weld held but the track ripped like an orange peel (best way to describe it),

Indeed it should always be the steel that fails. Welding decreases the ductility of steel, but as a result it has a slightly higher yield stress (am I using the right term? It's a saturday afternoon so as you can imagine I'm not exactly 'focused' ).

I know there was a colossal amount of pressure but i cant get my head round that the heat weakened these beams so much, So causing the (alleged) structural failure.. remember 48 beams interlocked with concrete and rebare and the electrical conduits with 415 volt cables (the really big buggers), and we are lead to believe an aeroplane fuselage ripped clean through ?? all that mass..

Nope, not at all. Without meaning to be insulting, it sounds like you've been reading truther sites a bit too much. Have a read of the summaries of the NIST reports, the first report in each section: wtc.nist.gov...

You'll find that there's a surprisingly convincing amount of evidence as to what caused building failure.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Abrahm

 

Hey Abrahm. If the 'hutchinson effect' really exists, a prerequisite of the theory would surely be to explain the interaction on a particle level.

Hey Exponent,

Mr. Hutchison's experiments have been done using very low amounts of energy. The proper interference between electromagnetic energy and electrostatic fields seems to be releasing energy from within the atoms.

Here is a more recent experiment that Mr. Hutchison did, using an iron bar:



Perhaps you could direct your questions to a more qualified scientist, since I am only a medical student. How about Boyd Bushman, a senior scientist of Lockheed Martin defense corporation? Let's see what he says about The Hutchison Effect:





-Abe

Moderator-Note: Removed Private Address.

It's nice to see a lot of people with actual knowledge on the properties of steel participating in this thread. What a nice break from the delusional, ignorant ramblings of laymen.

Thank you, those of you who actually know what you're talking about. This is why I love ATS.

Originally posted by ben91069

Not necessarily. All steels are not the same, they come in as many grades as colors of the rainbow. A railway track, for example is not the same kind of steel you would want to use for a building. A railroad track needs to have strength and hardness, because of the weight of trains bearing down upon it would surely deform the rail after prolonged use. When steel is made to give it more hardness, it generally sacrifices it's malleability which means when you bend it, it fractures rather than bends smoothly.

I believe this would say if the metal was used as of today, when the towers where built they were not using recycled materials.. It was all brand new stuff..

Originally posted by ben91069
A piece of steel used in modern skyscraper structural steel would be a grade such as A36. Here is a Wikipedia entry for the general characteristics of A36. You'll note at the bottom of the page is a citation it was drawn from, which will give you a more comprehensive comparison of different steel types and grades according to ASTM:

General mechanic properties of A36 steel per Wikipedia

edit on 9-10-2010 by ben91069 because: (no reason given)

I dont know dude.. This metal the towers were made of was made where I grew up.. And believe me, they gloated over the fact that it was the best crap(word substituted cause of rules) in the world.. The metal that was made for most of NYC was made in Homestead PA. At the time it was the best metal even to today's standards.. There was no screw ups with it no substitutes or anything.. This metal can take alot of damage..

I was talking with a few steelworkers after this happened where i grew up and they all dont believe what was said on tv because they know what they made and it was impossible for the metal to do what it supposedly did on 9/11.. So.. that gives you some idea behind the metal that was made..

And for the record I dont support Judy Crackpot Woods.. I am just going on what I know from the metal of the period.. This is part of the reason I dont believe the official story because I know intimately about this metal..

OK to expand the thread a bit further, I recently watched a program about the manufacturing of the replica anchor from the Belfast built Titanic,
From BBC UK.. "How we built Titanic"..

"As some of you might have already been aware, the anchor for the Titanic was made
in Netherton near Dudley, by local firm Hingley's. It was transported from it's factory
to Dudley Train Station in May 1911, from where it travelled onto the ill-fated ship"

Now I'm just using this as an example, But during the program it showed the smelting and "forming" process, and adding aluminium ingots to strengthen the casted "shank" during the program it showed the massive press forming the shank into shape, the steel was nearly white hot and the press took about an hour to form the shank. (a rough guess).. I suppose what iam trying to put across is how did the world trade towers steel get this hot to form and bend (and not crack) to the shape showed in OPs picture..

Picture of replica Titanic anchor, Note the steel shank..

Originally posted by Abrahm

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Abrahm

 

Hey Abrahm. If the 'hutchinson effect' really exists, a prerequisite of the theory would surely be to explain the interaction on a particle level.

Hey Exponent,

Mr. Hutchison's experiments have been done using very low amounts of energy. The proper interference between electromagnetic energy and electrostatic fields seems to be releasing energy from within the atoms.

Here is a more recent experiment that Mr. Hutchison did, using an iron bar:

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

edit on 9-10-2010 by Abrahm because: typo

Solid Iron bar? Give over! It looks nothing like an iron bar. All I see is something that has partly melted and was wrapped in a thin sheet that has been heated by microwave radiation. In other words, the object looks hollow, not solid. Yet another example of Hutchinson's deception.

Were you present in the lab when the test was carried out? Did you examine the object before it was burnt? No. So stop being taken for a ride by uncritically accepting Hutchinson's honesty.

Well I refuse to believe this level of steel bent without some major help taking it down

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/058ecfe60356.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Abrahm
Mr. Hutchison's experiments have been done using very low amounts of energy. The proper interference between electromagnetic energy and electrostatic fields seems to be releasing energy from within the atoms.

Here is a more recent experiment that Mr. Hutchison did, using an iron bar:

On the contrary, if that video is really produced by Mr Hutchinson it exposes just how badly he's trying to con you. By deforming in that manner, the volume of the object decreases. As a result of this, the energy contained within the reduced volume must be expended somehow. In this instance the only mechanism is through heating, and the amount of energy released would be more than enough to melt that sample.

In short, if we were to believe that this video is accurate, and a solid iron bar (bars are cylindrical) deformed in this manner without melting, one of the following must be true:
a) Energy was released in the form of non visible radiation that did not heat the object, and did not cause damage to the cameraman or any surroundings at all. This seems extremely unlikely
b) Conservation of energy is incorrect, this is all but impossible
c) Material was 'transmuted' into something two to three times more dense than steel, this is impossible.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Well I refuse to believe this level of steel bent without some major help taking it down

Here is one of many images of the outer wall bending in prior to collapse


There's a lot of force applied by gravity. More than you might expect.

reply to post by exponent


I DO hope that everyone on ATS realizes that (fairly 'new') member "Abrhm" is actually none other than "PootzkA"

?????

I mean, I DO HOPE y'all realize this, yes?????

(HINT: Got to "TOOLS", up above, and click on "MEMBERS" and search for ATS members' screennames, to see their history. Aren't there RULES AGAINST multiple ATS accounts?????)