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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 15
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I am amazed truthers think the gov and NIST would blatantly lie and by proxy document their lies in their reports.

Also out of the univerties and majority of the persons is science disciplines, only the truthers have the intelect to catch the lies in the gov/NIST reports. The lies are right there in black and white. I guess truthers are that much smarter than all the engineering associates and groups. Or are they part of the WTC cover-up? Not much of a conspiracy if only the truthers are not part of it?




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Well publish your own model mate and see if gets traction. Should be easy for somebody of you intellect. I know I don't spell well and can handle the intellectual gabs. But that seems like that was a thteat. I thought truthers didn't like the strong arm tactics of are government. Why would you become like them with threats?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




It wasn't me who said anything about nukes. They do have tactical nukes that do not put out high levels of radiation. So I wouldn't rule it out.


Thats news to people who design nuclear weapons.......

Smallest tactical nuke (Davy Crockett W54) with yield of 20 tons produces lethal radiation 1/4 mile (400 m) from burst point

The blast/thermal effects in contrast only extend out 150 meter

Even a 1 kt (1000 ton) yield generates lethal radiation 1/2 mile (800 meters). Blast/Thermal only extend 550 meters

Here is nuclear effects calculator showing damage pattern from nuclear blast - has variety of devices/yields and locations
(nuke your favorite city!)

nuclearsecrecy.com...



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Doctor Smith




It wasn't me who said anything about nukes. They do have tactical nukes that do not put out high levels of radiation. So I wouldn't rule it out.


Thats news to people who design nuclear weapons.......

Smallest tactical nuke (Davy Crockett W54) with yield of 20 tons produces lethal radiation 1/4 mile (400 m) from burst point

The blast/thermal effects in contrast only extend out 150 meter

Even a 1 kt (1000 ton) yield generates lethal radiation 1/2 mile (800 meters). Blast/Thermal only extend 550 meters

Here is nuclear effects calculator showing damage pattern from nuclear blast - has variety of devices/yields and locations
(nuke your favorite city!)

nuclearsecrecy.com...



If you want to talk about nukes go ahead. Nano thermate was found in all the dust samples.

Don't remember where I heard about small yield low radiation tactical nukes. You should be aware that anything you know of is old news. At least 40 years behind what the military has. Look at this video at 13 minutes.


edit on 11-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: neutronflux

First off, it's not my video. Secondly, the author of the video uses original plans of WTC7 to point out important structural components that NIST, for some reason, decided to leave out of their collapse model. Maybe because including them renders their entire theory impossible. Thirdly, you should get your facts straight before accusing me of "manipulating" something mate.


Exactly. NIST left out the fact that the steel was welded, bolted, riveted together so their scenario could never happen in a million years. The parameters of the program were boosted up beyond possibility. And their model didn't fall anything like what actually happened. NIST even said that the chances of this happening was almost zero.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I made the statement if there was enough radiation to make people sick, contamination would be prevalent. Thus easy to detect. This was to the response a nuke was used because people had radiation sickness. Chernobal was a system over pressure explosion. The West knew something happen because Radiation monitors in Europe detected the contamination fallout. What does the video have to do with that statement.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I think you have it backwards. If there are no expansion joints, the those types of connections are prone to failure. Welding, bolting, or riveting alone are static and will fail in large buildings with no expansion joints. Riveting is no longer a preferred building method. Welding actually weakens metal. Makes it britel and adds stress. Welds often have to be heat soaked to relax the stress created at the weld. The actual commopents of a steel building have to have a system that allows for sliding of steel members and does not cause members to bind each other up preventing growth or shrinkage. Again, connect two vertical columns with no expansion joints with a horizontal beam, thermal stress, earthquakes, or wind will cause structural failure. However, expansion joints might only be good for a straight applied force. Torque the joint radially might cause it to fail.

Static bolt, rivet, and weld joints make a building prone to failure. How is that a wrong statement?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I think you have it backwards. If there are no expansion joints, the those types of connections are prone to failure. Welding, bolting, or riveting alone are static and will fail in large buildings with no expansion joints. Riveting is no longer a preferred building method. Welding actually weakens metal. Makes it britel and adds stress. Welds often have to be heat soaked to relax the stress created at the weld. The actual commopents of a steel building have to have a system that allows for sliding of steel members and does not cause members to bind each other up preventing growth or shrinkage. Again, connect two vertical columns with no expansion joints with a horizontal beam, thermal stress, earthquakes, or wind will cause structural failure. However, expansion joints might only be good for a straight applied force. Torque the joint radially might cause it to fail.

Static bolt, rivet, and weld joints make a building prone to failure. How is that a wrong statement?




The video said firmly attached. Sheer studs were used. The highest temperature any of the beams could go to wasn't enough.

Even if it was to sort of collapse, it could never fall in its foot print. Use some common sense for a change.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
it could never fall in its foot print.


Why do you make the false claim it fell into its own footprint?

You very obviously ignore Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building!



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Don't even get your point. If an expansion joint gets bound up, or side loaded, or twisted, it can fail. Max temp has nothing to do with it. If the expansion joint cannot allow the needed movement in relation to change in temperature, wind, building shift, earth movement induced stress it will fail. If an expansion joint is loaded in a way it was not designed for it will fail. Did they examine the specific failed components physically. Flaws in the processing or construction of the building steel. Lots of failure mechanisms other than max temp. How I'm I wrong.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Sry double post.
edit on 12-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

There are vessels of steel that can operator safely up to 400 degress Fahrenheit, but will fail if they get a 75 degree tempature differential across a tube sheet.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
it could never fall in its foot print.


Why do you make the false claim it fell into its own footprint?

You very obviously ignore Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building!


I don't know what point you're trying to make. No Controlled demolition is perfect. Building 7 is a perfect model of how you would want a successful controlled demolition to look like.




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
I don't know what point you're trying to make.


"Why do you make the false claim it fell into its own footprint? "

You claimed WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, but that is just a false claim. So why did you make it?

Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building are proof it did not fall into its own footprint!



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Point there is no evidence to support controlled demolition at the WTC period. Why would conspirators want it to look like a controlled demolition, which it doesn't. Only one tower was completely flatten. All three building fell slower than free fall. All three building showed signs of ongoing structure failing before collapsing. None of the buildingd fell into there own footprint. Now buildings near by had there windows knocked out by a explosion pressure wave. No sounds were heard or recorded associated with the detonation of explosives. No bomb fragments found. No physical evidence of a system to set off charges throughout the buildings. Or even an ignition system for explosives or thermite. (Signs of wires running over entire floors and floor to floor.). No indicative changes in metal grain/crystal that it was worked on by explosion or thermite. No documented or proven method to cut vertical columns with thermite much less bring down a whole building in your imagined footprint. Thermite burns to slow to match the speed of collapse. Docs logic. Never happened so it can't. How would a massive ignition system be added floor by floor and column by column with no notice. How mamy gallons of explosive paint would it take? Who would manufacturer hundreds of gallons of explosive paint. What kind of ignition system would you use? Where do you stick the blasting cap. How do you apply explosive paint thick enough to creat enough energy to ensure the whole surface ares explodes? Eye witness claiming stories of explosives are never identified, their stories have changed over time becoming more grand, or proven unreliable. No physical evidence to support eyewitnesses claims. Jones used Photoshop photos as evidence.

Controlled demo is a dead theory with no physical evidence.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
I don't know what point you're trying to make.


"Why do you make the false claim it fell into its own footprint? "

You claimed WTC 7 fell into its own footprint, but that is just a false claim. So why did you make it?

Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building are proof it did not fall into its own footprint!


The premise of this thread is scientific proof alone. All the educated Professors stand against you. You can deny it all you want. But in the end you're simply wrong.

Building 7 was 47 stories. The second tallest building to be officially imploded was this building below. It was only 30 stories! Look at all the debris hitting the other buildings! According to your kind this also wasn't controlled demolition as lots of debris hit the other buildings and it fell at a slight tilt just like building 7.




An authority figure could sell your kind a dung sandwich. LOL. You would probably slurp it down never realizing you had been duped.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

You do know other people don't agree with the NIST model.. Purdue, university of Edinburgh, and Arup engineer firm. None of those groups came to the conclusion demolishions or thermite was used. They all agree collaspe was the result of fire damage. Are they part of the conspiracy and criminals?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

You do know other people don't agree with the NIST model.. Purdue, university of Edinburgh, and Arup engineer firm. None of those groups came to the conclusion demolishions or thermite was used. They all agree collaspe was the result of fire damage. Are they part of the conspiracy and criminals?


They simply want to keep their jobs. That's all. Very few.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Strange the number of other models that don't agree with the NIST model but never mentioned by truthers because it shows the consensus explosives / thermite was not used. The nuke thing is ridiculous. They all conclude fire lead to collapse.
edit on 13-5-2016 by neutronflux because: Cnt spell



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Strange the number of other models that don't agree with the NIST model but never mentioned by truthers because it shows the consensus explosives / thermite was not used. The muke thing is ridiculous. The all concude fire lead to collapse.


What power does the USA have over the university of edinburgh? You know why these groups want better models? Because they want to design better buildings and fire protection. I really feel sad for you. You seem to eat the lies of the truthers right up. So sad.




top topics



 
44
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join