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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 68
160
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



And your point is ? Nothing, you don't have to tell me how the towers were built, ...


Why did you think I posted that photo of WTC1 and WTC2? I posted that photo for a particular good reason. If you had any knowledge on structures, you would have known why I posted that photo.

You would have known why squibs were seen as those buildings collapsed. You would have known how impact damage, along with the effects of fire, had caused the collapse of those buildings.

You would have known that after the impacts, structural loads were redistributed, whereas, the remaining structural columns were forced to carry additional structural loads. Since the impacts dislodged fire protection from the steel beams, it was just a matter of time before fire would finish the job.

I know what I am talking about because I've taught my aircraft structural students how certain repairs on an aircraft structure can redistribute structural loads. In one case, I'd disagreed with aircraft engineers in regard to their repair method in dealing with skin cracks on the C-5 transport because I knew their repairs would place additional stress loads on the skin with an addition of an internal doubler between structural ribs and the skin.

Well, a year later, external skin cracks began to appeared around the area where the internal doublers were placed, which is exactly the way I had predicted a year earlier. Needless to say, internal doublers were no longer added to new repairs.

It is no mystery to me how fire weakened the steel columns of the WTC buildings because I have often annealed (soften) steel in ovens at just 1000 degrees F., in order to form the steel into complex structural parts. Afterward, I would heat-treat the steel back to its original strength.

Once the floors began to pancake, there was nothing that could have stopped the process. Let's just say that the law of physics was followed during the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the internal collapse of WTC5. A simple examination of that photo I posted will show just how vulnerable the WTC buildings were to the effects of fire. Now, you know why fire protection is added to steel structures of buildings.

edit on 30-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



The fact is Brent Blanchard is only giving his "opinions" to what he believes happened at the WTC he does not provide any science to his silly theory.


It is not just a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact what he has said. After all, his company was on location with their seismic monitors during 9/11
edit on 30-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DarthFazer



Since you are not receptive to the facts regarding WTC7


I am receptive to the facts of WTC7, one of which, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC7. Now, prove me wrong with undeniable evidence.



A&E's findings...


A&E has been effectively discredited and debunked.

Case in point, A&E is still pushing the free fall fallacy despite the fact that video and photo evidence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed.

Another case in point:



A&E Claim on WTC7

Straight-Down, Symmetrical Collapse into Building Footprint


Now, let's take a look at reality.

Damage Surrounding WTC7

Never mind that WTC7 began to tilt toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.

I think the folks at A&E are nothing more than armchair structural experts because the knowledge of science was not needed to determine that the WTC buildings were not falling at free fall speed, just good old-fashioned common sense was all that was needed considering that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are seen outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Since it took 1500 pounds of thermite just to melt through two steel legs of a simple tower at ground level in open space, how many pounds do you think it would have taken to burn through the massive steel box beams of the WTC Towers above the 70th floors behind closed walls in a crowded building?

Packing 1500 Pounds of Thermite on Tower at Ground Level
edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Since there is over 500 eyewitness who went on record saying they saw explosions, they heard explosions and some eyewitness survived being in some of the explosions.


Since explosions in New York City are very common, show the evidence that the explosions they heard had anything to do with explosives in light of the following news reports.



New York City Manhole Explosions Epidemic Puts Pressure On Con Edison

There were 2,100 explosions in 2014 and more than 1,000 so far in 2015, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported.

newyork.cbslocal.com...


Every Day in New York Is a New Chance to Get Hit by an Exploding Manhole

New York's manhole incidents are officially out of control: There were 600 alone in the first week of February, and the city averages about 2100 (explosions) a year.

nymag.com...#

edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DarthFazer



Oh so instead of disproving A&E's scientfic findings you attack a single person's character in the org with unfounded claims. And if it were true "and Korg just illustrated that it is not" how does that take away from the work of over 1000 architects and engineers ?


I think you have been overlooking the numbers I have been posting, but in case you have, here they are again.



There are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.

There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Are you beeing seriously hilarious now? Just asking if you really think there were so many other explosions that day, as you seem to actually suggest they are a "natural appearance" in the Big Apple like common taxi-cabs.

Which actually says a lot, regarding this amusing amount of spam you produce. But heck... it's a great topic, bump it!




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Since explosions in New York City are very common, show the evidence that the explosions they heard had anything to do with explosives in light of the following news reports.


Manhole! LOL, Are you saying what all the 500 eyewitness heard was manholes blowing up?

That won't work.

I believe firefighters know the different of a manhole blowing up and a building blowing up. I believe those people that were caught in the explosions in the WTC and lived to tell their stories, will in fact think your nuts to tell them those explosions inside the WTC were manholes.

Not all the 500 eyewitness were in the street, many were in the WTC while it was being blown to pieces and survived the demolition.


It is not just a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact what he has said. After all, his company was on location with their seismic monitors during 9/11


No it is a fact he was given his "opinions". What is it you do not understand? OPINIONS are not facts and they are not science.

As far as the seismic monitors, we have the evidence and it did not come from Brent Blanchard.

Brent Blanchard sold his country out and his integrity by given his silly opinions in support for the OS.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You really need to read the profiles listed for these 'professionals'.

These are all on one page.
And I haven't gone through every bio on the page.
I'm sure I can find more jokesters among the experts.


Let's have alooksee... Taken from an article back in 2013....

A Closer Look at the Petition Signers



The architects and engineers who have signed our petition reflect a wide range of disciplines and specialties. A great many hold degrees from nationally and internationally respected colleges and universities, and many have received high honors from their professional or academic communities.

Many are principals of firms, and several dozen have designed high-rise structures similar to the World Trade Center buildings. For most, the length of professional experience can be measured not in years but in decades, and collectively, they comprise more than 30,000 years of qualified technical experience.

In short, they are precisely the kinds of people that our society turns to when trying to understand complex events like the catastrophic destruction of the World Trade Center – that is, experts.


30'000 years of qualified technical experience......


More than 75 AE911Truth petition signers hold Ph.D. degrees. More than 190 hold M.S. degrees. Nearly 100 of our architects are members of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

Seven of our signers are Fellows of the AIA (FAIA), one of the highest honors that the organization can bestow upon a member. High-rise architect Daniel Barnum, FAIA, is one of the signers who holds this prestigious distinction, which reflects great personal and professional achievement.

With more than 40 years of experience, Barnum has worked on major high-rise office buildings in Houston, Texas, and was project manager for a 22-story high-rise office building in Akron, Ohio. In recalling the collapse of World Trade Center 7 in the film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out, Barnum said, “…a few fires in that building and, I mean, they weren’t even raging, and how could that cause a building to collapse? Couldn’t happen.


So not a car mechanic then.....


More than 60 petition signers received degrees from Ivy League institutions, including 17 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 16 from Harvard University, and 5 from Yale University. These are people who, as high school students, typically graduated with the top grade point averages in their class, in order to be selected for admission.

Architect Jody Gibbs, for example, is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale. He has commented on the six-ton structural steel section from World Trade Center 1 that somehow was thrown into the American Express building like a dart – indicating the use of explosives. “Gravity works vertically, not laterally,” he said succinctly but with the kind of appeal to basic physics that tends to demolish the official 9/11 story.

In a letter urging his fellow architects to attend a showing of a popular 9/11 Truth film, Gibbs exposed the failings of the 9/11 Commission Report. “Unfortunately the 9/11 Commission was not a court procedure or a scientific investigation,” Gibbs wrote. “Instead, it was a public hearing convened by politicians. There was no forensic investigation for explosives. World Trade Center Building 7 was not even investigated. No explanation was given for the pulverization of the concrete in midair, nor the free-fall time of the collapses . . . .

There were members of the FBI, the NSA, military intelligence, and numerous scientific and engineering experts who wished to present information to the Commission contradicting the official story, but were denied the opportunity.” When Gibbs wrote this letter in 2009, he referenced “nearly one thousand” architects and engineers calling for a new investigation. Today there are twice that many.


Let's continue shall we...


Another Ivy League graduate, David Johnson, adds an uncommon level of first-hand knowledge to his stellar academic credentials. A Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, Johnson holds both undergraduate and graduate degrees from Yale (where he studied under a professor who had worked on the Empire State Building) and a Ph.D. in Regional Planning from Cornell University, and is Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at The University of Tennessee.

“As a professional city planner in New York,” Johnson wrote in his petition statement, “I knew those buildings [the Twin Towers] and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. . . . So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. . . . When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base.”


Hmmm..... And more perhaps??


n addition to the Ivy Leagues, many other academic institutions with excellent reputations are represented among the signers of our petition, including Carnegie Mellon University, which specializes in engineering and is consistently ranked highly in engineering disciplines. One of the 15 signers with a degree from Carnegie Mellon is David Griscom, a physicist who received his B.S. from Carnegie Mellon and his Ph.D. from Brown University. Dr. Griscom worked at the Naval Research Laboratory, and was chosen by NASA from among hundreds of scientists as a team leader in analyzing the moon rocks from the Apollo missions.

He has published 193 studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals and was a reviewer of the study on thermitic material found in the dust of the World Trade Center.

Dr. Griscom emphasizes the importance of credentialed professionals lending their expertise to the 9/11 Truth movement, saying, “I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals [such as] the Journal of Applied Physics.”


What qualifications and experience do you have??

Korg....


edit on 1-10-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb



And your point is ? Nothing, you don't have to tell me how the towers were built, ...


Why did you think I posted that photo of WTC1 and WTC2? I posted that photo for a particular good reason. If you had any knowledge on structures, you would have known why I posted that photo.

You would have known why squibs were seen as those buildings collapsed. You would have known how impact damage, along with the effects of fire, had caused the collapse of those buildings.

You would have known that after the impacts, structural loads were redistributed, whereas, the remaining structural columns were forced to carry additional structural loads. Since the impacts dislodged fire protection from the steel beams, it was just a matter of time before fire would finish the job.

I know what I am talking about because I've taught my aircraft structural students how certain repairs on an aircraft structure can redistribute structural loads. In one case, I'd disagreed with aircraft engineers in regard to their repair method in dealing with skin cracks on the C-5 transport because I knew their repairs would place additional stress loads on the skin with an addition of an internal doubler between structural ribs and the skin.

Well, a year later, external skin cracks began to appeared around the area where the internal doublers were placed, which is exactly the way I had predicted a year earlier. Needless to say, internal doublers were no longer added to new repairs.

It is no mystery to me how fire weakened the steel columns of the WTC buildings because I have often annealed (soften) steel in ovens at just 1000 degrees F., in order to form the steel into complex structural parts. Afterward, I would heat-treat the steel back to its original strength.

Once the floors began to pancake, there was nothing that could have stopped the process. Let's just say that the law of physics was followed during the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the internal collapse of WTC5. A simple examination of that photo I posted will show just how vulnerable the WTC buildings were to the effects of fire. Now, you know why fire protection is added to steel structures of buildings.



I disagree 100% and no I don't think you know what your talking about....






posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Manhole! LOL, Are you saying what all the 500 eyewitness heard was manholes blowing up?


Not just manhole explosions, but exploding fuel tanks from buring vehicles, molten aluminum from the aluminum airframes and facade of the WTC Towers,coming into contact with water, a very explosive mixture which has been known to level small buildings, exploding gas lines, as mentioned by firefighters during an NBC News report, structural failures, which is also sound like explosions, pancaking floors, as reported by firefighters as sounding like explosions, aircraft impacts, crashing elevators, and even falling bodies were reported as sounding like explosions, etc.

As you can see, the explosions had nothing to do with explosives, which explains why no demo explosions were detected by seismic monitors and why no evidence of explosives was ever found after 14 years. BTW, the explosions occurred long before, and long after, the WTC buildings collapsed, which of course, had nothing to do with demo explosives because that is not the way its done in the world of explosive implosions.

edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I know exactly what I am talking about, and in fact, I know enough to let you know there is a problem with your video. When the B-707 was taken into consideration, the designers didn't take into an account an aircraft slicing into the WTC Towers at over 500 mph and dislodging fire protection from the steel columns.

The WTC Towers withstood the aircraft impacts as designed, but they never took into an account massive impact damage in conjunction with uncontrolled fires at the impact zones where fire protection was dislodged. There is a reason why fire protection is added to steel columns and we can take a look here to see what happens when structural steel is exposed to the effects of fire.

Photo 1: What Fire Can Do To Steel Beams

Photo 2: What Fire Can Do To Steel Beams

Photo 3: What Fire Can Do To Steel Beams

This picture shows why WTC2 collapsed before WTC1, and notice that at the impact point, the overhead mass was much greater than the overhead mass of WTC1.

WTC1 and WTC2 Overhead Mass Comparison

edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   


I know exactly what I am talking about, and in fact, I know enough to let you know there is a problem with your video.


No, no problem with the video, and your opinion is irrelevant....



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

That won't work. Please tell us at what airspeed in regard to a B-707 striking the WTC Towers, did the designers take into consideration?


edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

From your link.



The architects and engineers who have signed our petition reflect a wide range of disciplines and specialties.


Now, let's take a look here.



Architects Shy From Trutherism

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,”

www.architectmagazine.com...


Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


BYU Physics Department Does Not Support Steven Jones

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

www.debunking911.com...

edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Not all the 500 eyewitness were in the street, many were in the WTC while it was being blown to pieces and survived the demolition.


First of all, there were no demo explosions, which was evident by the fact no demo explosions were detected on seismic monitors, which is an indication the explosions had nothing to do with explosives attached to steel columns and if explosives are not firmly attached to steel columns, they will simply be ineffective as in this following photo.

Steel Beams Withstand Bomb Attack

Secondly, demolition experts have stated they heard no demo explosions at ground zero and they have the experience to determine whether the explosions were caused by demo explosives or not.

Thirdly, the explosions were not indicative of demo explosions. Demo explosives are detonated within seconds of one another, not over a time span of minutes and hours of the day.
edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Not just manhole explosions, but exploding fuel tanks from buring vehicles, molten aluminum from the aluminum airframes and facade of the WTC Towers,coming into contact with water, a very explosive mixture which has been known to level small buildings, exploding gas lines, as mentioned by firefighters during an NBC News report, structural failures, which is also sound like explosions, pancaking floors, as reported by firefighters as sounding like explosions, aircraft impacts, crashing elevators, and even falling bodies were reported as sounding like explosions, etc.

As you can see, the explosions had nothing to do with explosives, which explains why no demo explosions were detected by seismic monitors and why no evidence of explosives was ever found after 14 years. BTW, the explosions occurred long before, and long after, the WTC buildings collapsed, which of course, had nothing to do with demo explosives because that is not the way its done in the world of explosive implosions.


That doesn't work.

So everything around the WTC blew up but not the WTC? Cars blew up, manholes blew up, gas lines blew up, now people blew up.

So to believe the OS one MUST deny there was no explosions and deny 500 credible eyewitness, deny A&E science in the WTC and justify everything else blew up. Yes, that kind of thinking will support the OS lie.

The problem you have here on ATS, is you trying your best to push the OS, and most of us are not stupid, or uneducated as you demonstrated to believe we are.


This is evidence of one who denies credible evidence, one is only looking to support a belief system in themselves.

edit on 1-10-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


I am receptive to the facts of WTC7, one of which, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC7. Now, prove me wrong with undeniable evidence.

NO you certinly are not. You have ignored the facts and testimony and continue to come up with contrived nonsense as your argument.


A&E has been effectively discredited and debunked.

Case in point, A&E is still pushing the free fall fallacy despite the fact that video and photo evidence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WTC buildings did not fall at free fall speed.



NO it has not been debunked.



Now, let's take a look at reality.

Damage Surrounding WTC7

Never mind that WTC7 began to tilt toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.

I think the folks at A&E are nothing more than armchair structural experts because the knowledge of science was not needed to determine that the WTC buildings were not falling at free fall speed, just good old-fashioned common sense was all that was needed considering that debris, which are falling at free fall speed, are seen outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The NIST WTC7 Report, prior to the final version which was altered to admit a 2.25 second period of freefall. The building was in freefall for a period of 2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario. www.911speakout.org...


Where do you get such garbage NAT GEO ?

A&E are actually in fact professionals of many trades including ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS whereas you claim to be a pilot. That makes you the defacto arm chair expert does it not ? Lets do the math , over 1000 today around 2000 A&E members vs a variety of fringe science shill sites "opinions" and your "opinion". That's a whole lotta snake oil for sale.

WTC 7 did not "tilt" what a crock of BS !

You are only presenting satire at this point , I find your troll attempts and repeating the same copy-a-pasta amusing though , please continue. This is hilarious.

edit on 1-10-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-10-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



That doesn't work.


Of course it works and to prove me point, post the time lines where demo explosions are heard in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, and then, point out demo spikes in the seismic data. If you are unable to point out the time lines in those videos and seismic data on seismic charts, then my case will have been made, and that is, no demo detonations occurred at ground zero.


So everything around the WTC blew up but not the WTC? Cars blew up, manholes blew up, gas lines blew up, now people blew up.


We can take a look here.



Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions....They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

www.debunking911.com...

edit on 1-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958


Manhole! LOL, Are you saying what all the 500 eyewitness heard was manholes blowing up?


Skyeagle seems to think the Ninja Turtles were doing battle during the events of 9-11.

Shredder did 9-11



edit on 1-10-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join