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.

 

Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

page: 18
91
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: MrBig2430

Well, we will have to wait until A&E working with another group who will have a Peer Review Report done on the WTC 7.

I believe that Report will be available around April of 2017.


And not surprisingly, you have again missed the point. Or ignored it.

The free fall period of collapse of 7 is easily explained without invoking explosive demolition of the ext columns.

However, ignorant conspiracy believers that this free fall period is important. Szamboti could no longer stay silent about this issue cuz he realizes it undermines the credibility of himself.

I've proven that Szamboti has corrected Chandler about the free fall period and it's rather ordinary explanation.

I've also proven that the OP makes assertions that are not only untrue, but is reluctant to investigate counter claims.

This entire thread and the so called "science" behind it is nothing but wild speculation




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430


I've also proven that the OP makes assertions that are not only untrue, but is reluctant to investigate counter claims.


The fact is, any causal ATS reader reading this thread topic can clearly see you have only given your "opinions" and nothing more.


This entire thread and the so called "science" behind it is nothing but wild speculation


Your "opinion".


However, ignorant conspiracy believers


So now all conspiracy theorist are ignorant? Yet you are on a Conspiracy website given your "opinions" and hoping everyone is to stupid to know the different from "opinions" to well researched science with real facts.

The fact is, none of you debunkers have debunked LaBTop presentation in this Topic but only have ridiculed it.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I give fact after fact. Question after question. You can only say it's your opinion.

Please do tell how 20000 body parts recovered, 6000 fit in a test tubes, but no fragments of demolitions found by anyone is not fact but an opinion. It's a fact, not one piece of steel at the WTC was worked on by explosives or thermite. It's a fact, no audio of explosive devices setting off is recorded in any WTC footage.
edit on 29-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's a post by Tony Szamboti on page 7 of a now 43 pages long discussion about a jolt that should have been obvious if it was a natural collapse in case of WTC-7.
It seems you have never heard the answer that Mr Sunder (director of the 9/11 NIST investigations) gave, when asked what a period of complete free fall acceleration would have meant at that famous NIST meeting where questions about their draft of the Final WTC-7 NIST Report got answered, and David Chandler came up with his now famous remarks about a 2.25 secs period of free fall acceleration in the WTC-7 collapse.
Shyam Sunder said that in such case, ALL resistance under such failing floors would have been absent, or something like that.
Which means in my opinion, that all steel lost its strength at once, or over a very small amount of time, just what Tony is trying to tell those hard-heads at JREF, err, sorry, it's now suddenly ISF, for the next 36 pages.

I'm still reading those 43 pages, so, wait until I've overcome my last sarcastic smiles.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Debate (ongoing per this posting date) between Tony Szamboti and a certain tfk from the former JREF forum, renamed to ISF (international skeptics forum).

For reading really in-depth 9/11 discussion, go to :

the911forum.freeforums.org... (admin OneWhiteEye)
www.sharpprintinginc.com... (admin MajorTom)

Summary of points made :
(i) Failure of columns defines the process (Point for Agreement)
(ii) During this stage all columns failed (Point for Agreement)

Ad (i) and (ii) .
There's a mathematical engineering thesis at hand, proposing that even when 50 % of all steel columns (periphery and core) are removed from all equations, plus the strength of all vertical and horizontal steel in the initiation regions are set to 50 % of their initial strength by the effects of raging fires, still both Towers would not fail.

If, after exhaustive discussion, we can't come to any form of consensus to explain the three collapses we saw in Manhattan on 9/11/2001 , without introducing any form of extra energy input, such as explosives or thermate incendiaries to aid the initial plane impact damage and subsequent fires (which did not inflict by far, that much strength loss as proposed in afore mentioned thesis), and there's no evidence to the contrary laid out before us that both Towers would still stand, and were thus not be able to collapse at all, even with that much vertical strength removed, then there's no need to go on any other fact finding missions, since the impossibility of any form of natural collapse initiation after plane impact and subsequent fires alone, is sufficiently proved in such case.

There are 3 such publications at hand.
Links to them can be found on this page 2 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


LaBTop : I forgot to link to the two other 9/11 based math studies by Charles M. Beck :

1. arxiv.org... (6 pages, 1 figure)
Title : Role of Compaction Ratio in the Mathematical Model of Progressive Collapse.
Charles M. Beck, submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

2. arxiv.org... (24 pages, 7 figures)
Title : Descent curve and the phases of collapse of WTC 7.
Charles M. Beck.

3. arxiv.org... (15 pages, 7 figures)
Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse and the Question of How Did the World Trade Centers Perish
Charles M. Beck, also submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics

ASCE is the American Society of Civil Engineers. They accepted his thesis.
So it's not some bloke blowing off steam, he was accepted in their journal as a serious contributor.


I will simplify all that math for all :
All three collapses on 9/11 could not have occurred at all, if not some unnatural force is added to all the engineering and math equations.

Beck shows you in his nr 3 thesis that in case these collapses were natural, they would never have started, since he does not start his equations with damaged, cut in half, or buckled columns, no, he just removes HALF of ALL columns from his equations, and to top it off, he takes away HALF of ALL steel strength for ALL STEEL, and then proceeds to see if those buildings still would collapse.

Well, they didn't. His three "proposed natural collapsing" buildings whose steel was 50 % weakened would have still firmly stand erect at Ground Zero. No collapse-initiating buckling would have been possible.

I know till today of no peers who have challenged him on his 3 thesis.
It seems they intend them to disappear in that by now, well-known memory hole.
The three monkeys hole. No see, no hear, no talk.

REFERENCES.
Threads and posts of interest :

Tony Szamboti / tfk Debates : Debate on the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.
Both men are members of the former JREF, now ISF (Int. Skeptics Forum) forum, and the 911forum.freeforums.org. They are NOW debating each other at that 911forum.

Technical notes on video motion analysis, mentioning Charles M. Beck's papers.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Post by Tony Szamboti.


Tony : The statement that there are hundreds of photos available for examination today, that definitively prove “no explosives here”, is not proof of anything other than at those times and places there was no photographically determinable evidence of explosives. Unless you can show they cover all times and places concerning the destruction of the WTC this does not prove “no explosives here” in the overall sense you want to say. Even then you would have to show that photos were capable of showing the evidence. Photos cannot provide or dispute chemical evidence.


In the next post by tfk, the bad manners by former JREF members directly shine through, they lean on insults in about every post.


tfk : the photographic proof of the absence of explosively cut or melted column ends is available TODAY. Your choice to ignore these facts is immaterial.


Tony should ask tfk, why there are only ONE core column from WTC2S and only TWO from WTC1N known to exists in the NIST WTC-steel Repository of the 47 core-columns x 2 floors x 2 towers = 2 x 94 = 188 core columns from the collapse initialization zones in both towers :

NIST examines only 2 core columns

NIST examines only 2 core columns from the collapse initiation zones.
NIST noted in NCSTAR 1-3 that the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occurred represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas. NIST did not find any evidence that any of the recovered columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees Celsius.
6.6.2 Core Columns Exposed to Fire.
Four of the core columns with known as-built locations were examined for mud cracking of the paint. For columns C-88a and C-88b, sufficient paint for analysis was not available. For columns HH and C-80, few areas of paint were observed (three to five spots per column) with no indication of temperatures over 250 °C. Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columns on floors involved with fire and cannot be considered representative of any other core columns.

How many core column pieces were recovered from the collapse initiation zones of WTC1 and WTC2?
One from WTC2 and 2 from WTC1 from the locations marked (see diagrams).

Of the 94 (47x2) column sections which pass through the crucial 98th floor of WTC1, NIST managed to recover only one and you are looking at it:
From WTC1, Column HH.

These columns are interesting but it is the absence of the other 195 core column segments from the steel collection and the investigation which is much, much more interesting.

It is pretty obvious that for WTC1 careful examination of the 47 column sections spanning floors 98 to 101 and the 47 core column sections spanning floors 98 to 95 would show investigators all they need to know about the collapse initiation processes. Likewise, for WTC2, careful examination of the 47 core columns spanning floors 80 to 83 and those spanning floors 77 to 80 are very important to understand the WTC2 collapse initiation process. For example, if these columns were pretty straight on the whole, lacking significant signs of visco-plastic creep and buckled hinges, that would tell investigators that there was little collective core buckling.

James G. Quintiere, professor, Dept of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland:
Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?


Concerned citizens would expect to be able to see an abundance of photos from severed, buckled, cut in half or fully cut steel columns, as a result of around 500 mph impacting plane parts , from the 94th-98th floors in WTC1N and the 77th-85th floors in WTC2S.

If we may believe former JREF'er, now ISF'er tfk's arguments that

""Even if the cut columns were initially buried, they would have appeared as the upper columns disappeared throughout the debris removal process"",

then why isn't he capable of showing the readers all those cut and severed columns from the plane impact regions.? Or more than 3 columns, in fact 188 core columns from the collapse initiation zones.?

There was a clear and concerted effort to not photograph WTC-steel in the rubble heaps, which would not fit the officially pushed theories of natural collapse after plane impacts and/or fire damage.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   

tfk : ""Severing half the columns on every other floor would produce 30% of all columns (~6440) & of all column ends (~12,900) “explosively cut / melted”.

Plus another 320 cut columns (& 320 cut ends) for the WTC7 columns
.""


Not when FAE or Thermobaric explosives were used. They leave no traces of any importance, and the bulk of the explosive gaseous material is expelled as expanding gases, mixed with loads of fine concrete dust, just as we saw happen on 9/11.
Such exploding gaseous devices will not cut column ends, but push and lift the huge areas of composite concrete floor plates that enclose the core area, then shear the vertical column ends from their welds and bolts, just as you can see at about every upper and lower end of periphery columns in the Vierendeel triplets. The debris piles were shattered with thousands of these vertically lifted periphery column ends, while these were showing mostly oval holes where the sheared out bolts had been stuck through.
A natural collapse would have shown mostly buckled periphery column ends, because the destructive force vectors are mainly directed downwards in such scenarios and much smaller parts of the force vectors are directed in- or outwards (folding sideways).

The > 20,000 m/s explosive gas fronts of four sophisticated thermobaric devices camouflaged as f.ex. cooling units hung up near the core area walls, or dust bins standing in those core areas, will much earlier in the explosions their effective time frame of a few milliseconds bounce off with enormous force from each other inside the quite open core areas (those thin plywood or chalkboard office and elevators walls space dividers will mean nothing in forms of resistance for these enormous explosive forces), and then re-unite with the outwards spitting explosion fronts and impressively enforce them, on their way outwards shattering those composite concrete floors to ultra-fine concrete dust, and pulverize their relatively thin steel concrete-holding steel base-plates. I know of only one or two existing photos of these steel plates, still -partly- intact in the two rubble piles from the top down demolitions of the Twin Towers (WTC-7 was a totally different, bottom-up collapse). And a few compressed ones in a photo of the 5th cellar region, where the only spot was in the collapsed areas where these concrete holding base plates were really pancaked on top of each other by the full mass of the thundering down buildings debris heaps. But those were much stronger ones that held the concrete of the thick floors of the 5 basements. Those photographed pancaked ones were not from floors from above ground.

The 4 FEMA appointed photographers were also subject to interrogation every time they left the fenced-off premises of the three debris heaps, by secret service, FBI and military agents, just as all other assisting personnel and in the first week, the self-chosen volunteers.
There are many reports of disgruntled volunteers and firefighters who complained about the time consuming interrogations after their shift ended, when they were so tired and only wanted to get home.
See also all the Sonnenfeldt reports. He was one of those 4 photographers.
He promised to release some shocking photos. I didn't see them yet, he probably bought his freedom in Argentine with them, by destroying or delivering the originals to the American justice servants trying to extradite him from there back to the USA under accusation for the murder of his ex wife.


tfk : Nonsense.
I adamantly include all video evidence, because it unequivocally proves “no explosions”.
Audio tracks prove that explosions of the proper number, volume & timing were completely absent.


Pertinent untrue.
See the Ashley Banfield video and its 9 explosion sounds in the background which fit into the 8.3 secs time frame between the first dent in the EPH and the start of the global collapse and its following first 2.25 secs of free fall acceleration :
youtu.be...
See also the FOIA video with the low, deep explosion sound in it, 2 secs before the EPH roof started to dent :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And see this seismic diagram with my additions, which explains precisely all those explosions to bring WTC-7 down in a perfect fitting timely manner :
files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The rest of tfk remarks could be easily read as the opposite of what he meant :

Summarizing, you, tsk, failed to address:
… the non-existing photographic evidence of the plane impacted periphery and core column regions . You hand-waved it away.

… the presence of recorded explosions, without any absurd appeal to perfection.
100's of videos unequivocally prove consumer and professional VCRs have difficulties recording real CD explosions on 9/11. You’re welcome to deny it & look foolish.

… Brent Blanchard’s statement on Protec’s recorded seismic signals which he never was able to materialize, after he got called out by LaBTop at the 9/11 forum at ATS.
He vanished, without ever showing up anymore. His firm, Protec, when phoned to ask for those handheld seismograms, excused themselves by saying that they were sorry, but all of them were somehow lost from their repository. Blanchard is not an explosives expert, he's a journalist writing for Protec's own business monthlies.

… the senselessness of a “plan” to wire the buildings for CD, and wait weeks/months/years before setting them off, because it was much easier to place camouflaged thermobarics, not bigger than a dustbin, in or near the core areas on every second or third floor, and ignite them by radio wave signals, following a computerized digital ignition sequence .

… OBL’s repeated public assertions that he did order the attack, were nothing more than false flag operations by CIA etc., with clear doubles of OBL.

And tfk failed to produce any solid evidence for the non-existence of explosives.
__

As for the rest of Szamboti's post concerning
“Chandler’s comments about audio”
“Cole’s ‘evidence’…”
“Explosions in WTC1 …”
“Rousseau’s paper”
“OBL’s denial of involvement”, prior to several admissions of involvement.
“firefighter comments…”
they were hand waved away based on this really lame excuse by someone who has no answers to the above points :
Tfk : None of these points are responsive to the points that I made.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430
And not surprisingly, you have again missed the point. Or ignored it.
The free fall period of collapse of 7 is easily explained without invoking explosive demolition of the ext columns.
However, ignorant conspiracy believers that this free fall period is important. Szamboti could no longer stay silent about this issue cuz he realizes it undermines the credibility of himself.
I've proven that Szamboti has corrected Chandler about the free fall period and it's rather ordinary explanation.
I've also proven that the OP makes assertions that are not only untrue, but is reluctant to investigate counter claims.
This entire thread and the so called "science" behind it is nothing but wild speculation


The only thing you proved is your total ignorance of what is going on in that thread, and now in the Tony versus jfk debate thread at the 911Forum.

You should try to understand what Toni is explaining to tfk in his last two posts :
Tony, Sat Jul 02, 2016
Tony, Mon Jul 04, 2016

Tony is trying to tell those hard heads there, that you need a LOT more core columns to fail simultaneously over 8 stories, to create a 2.25 secs period of free fall acceleration, than that one failing column 79 that NIST tries to sell us.

And of course you are still not amazed at all, that NIST pertinently denies to show anybody, or the world's scientists, their data which they based their WTC-7 collapse animations on, in which they tried to recreate the smooth and complete downward movement of the whole outer shell of WTC-7. For which they failed miserably by the way. They never showed more than a few seconds of an animation that even came near what the videos show. And refused to show the data they fed that particular animation, nor offered the software they used to peer reviewers outside the NIST bastion. We know that they fed the software with crazy high temperatures over a far too big area and over a far too long period, to even give a shimmer of reality to their lies.
You find that not strange at all.

You find it also not strange at all, that NIST suddenly removed ALL their up till then, openly published seismic studies, after I came up with the HUGE discrepancy between the NIST and LDEO time frames and the data both of them relied on.
Two official US-institutes who's data streams were far out of synchronization, while OF COURSE they should be perfectly cover each other.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


Such exploding gaseous devices will not cut column ends, but push and lift the huge areas of composite concrete floor plates that enclose the core area, then shear the vertical column ends from their welds and bolts,


As I've pointed out and was later challenged about, Labtop does nothing but make stuff up, for this is sheer speculation and evidence free assertion.

And since the rules of debate state that an assertion made without evidence to support it, such as :

1- how big and how many thermobarics per floor would be required

2- how much force would it take to shear the columns at their connections

3- etc

It can be rejected as demonstrable garbage.



A natural collapse would have shown mostly buckled periphery column ends,
because the destructive force vectors are mainly directed downwards in such scenarios and much smaller parts of the force vectors are directed in- or outwards (folding sideways).



Stuff fell on the floors, therefore not very many columns would of buckled, perhaps only at the impact/collapse initiation zone.

Your assertion is rejected.

Again.


The > 20,000 m/s explosive gas fronts of four sophisticated thermobaric devices camouflaged as f.ex. cooling units hung up near the core area walls, or dust bins standing in those core areas, will much earlier in the explosions their effective time frame of a few milliseconds bounce off with enormous force from each other inside the quite open core areas (those thin plywood or chalkboard office and elevators walls space dividers will mean nothing in forms of resistance for these enormous explosive forces), and then re-unite with the outwards spitting explosion fronts and impressively enforce them, on their way outwards shattering those composite concrete floors to ultra-fine concrete dust, and pulverize their relatively thin steel concrete-holding steel base-plates.


This is pure fantasy.

You've provided zero evidence, other than circular, for anyone to even think that this is true.



The 4 FEMA appointed photographers were also subject to interrogation every time they left the fenced-off premises of the three debris heaps,


Yeah, but what you're leaving out is that the photos were published every day with zero censorship.

So Tony could look at those photos . But he can't find any evidence of what he needs for his particular fantasy to be true, therefore it proves the conspiracy, cuz if it wasn't a conspiracy, the photos that he needs would be available.

Now THAT'S circular reasoning.





Pertinent untrue.




There is zero audio nor video evidence of the type of explosions necessary to cut steel.

There is zero audio nor video evidence of the type of thermobaric explosions that you personally fantasize about.

There is zero seismic evidence that reflect any explosives use to CD any towers.

There is zero photo evidence of any steel showing blast effects

There is zero photo evidence of any steel showing thermxte effects,

There is zero evidence for any of your fantasies. Any sane, rational person can see it.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop


100's of videos unequivocally prove consumer and professional VCRs have difficulties recording real CD explosions on 9/11. You’re welcome to deny it & look foolish.



So let me get this straight.

One can go to youtube and search for CD videos, and on them, these consumer video VCRs capture the explosions quite readily.

But not on 9/11?

A rational person would entertain the thought that perhaps it just might be because there weren't any explosives being used to bring down the buildings.

But not you, right? You've never considered that....




with clear doubles of OBL.



LMAO.

Well, not much more can be said except that anyone believing this is too far gone to be reasoned with.

Much more productive to point out the stupidity of their posts and leave it at that.


And tfk failed to produce any solid evidence for the non-existence of explosives.


So he failed to prove a negative to your satisfaction now, did he?

Imagine that....



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBig2430


So let me get this straight.

One can go to youtube and search for CD videos, and on them, these consumer video VCRs capture the explosions quite readily.

But not on 9/11?


Yes explosions were captured on most News videos on 911, our eyes do not lie to us.

Explosions so powerful that it hurled thousands of tons of steel support beams over 600 feet in every direction as the WTC were coming down, that just doesn't happen when a building just falls down due to it's lease resistance without demolition being involved.

The fact is, what is witnessed on the News videos of the morning of 911 does not match the official narratives of the NIST pseudo science Report.

Another fact is, NIST cannot and will not show it's models explaining their so call science. Why all the secretes? If there is nothing to hide, why hide it?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Explosions so powerful that it hurled thousands of tons of steel support beams over 600 feet in every direction as the WTC were coming down,

Show us one video that has the sound of explosives going off just as the these beam were hurled over 600 feet.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Explosions so powerful that it hurled thousands of tons of steel support beams over 600 feet in every direction as the WTC were coming down, that just doesn't happen when a building just falls down due to it's lease resistance without demolition being involved.


I know we've been over this before but once again:
About Collapse Zones


3 Collapse Types The three most common types of wall collapse are the 90-degree-angle collapse, the curtain-fall collapse and the inward/outward collapse. Each has its unique way of falling, but when establishing collapse zones around a building, always develop your zones based on the worst-case scenario. The 90-degree-angle will fall similar to how a tree falls; the full height of the wall will separate from the building. Most collapse experts recommend a collapse zone distance equal to 1½ times the full height of the building for this type of collapse. The additional one-half is to protect firefighters from falling debris that may be projected out during the collapse. Remember: Bricks can weigh 4 to 6 lbs. The horizontal length of the wall should also be considered when establishing a collapse zone where you suspect a 90-degree-angle collapse. Failure of one section can bring the entire length of the wall with it. The curtain-fall collapse is like a curtain dropping, leaving a pile of debris at the base of the wall. It can fall both inward and outward. The inward/outward collapse occurs when the wall begins to lean in either direction, forcing the lower section in the other direction. Note: Although curtain-fall and inward/outward collapses may require smaller collapse zones, it’s best to prepare for the worst-case scenario and make all collapse zones 1½ times the wall height. In addition, any collapse zone should take into account not only the safe distance needed to avoid falling debris, but also radiant heat that’s often released after a collapse.


Note that the main towers were around 1300'+ tall so a collapse zone for those, had they been declared, would be something like a 2000' radius for the worst case scenario and that's without considering any explosive input into the collapse.
Makes 600' look pretty ordinary for debris falling outward (the WTC walls for example) from a height of over 1000' doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
What I find strange, this seismic data disinformation is tried over and over again. It never gains traction like the loose change lie referring to "jet fuel cannot melt steel" when the real point was heat weakened steel's ability to resist strain. And gets debunk over again with the same arguments over time and misrepresented data.
sites.google.com...
www.internationalskeptics.com...
www.internationalskeptics.com...

I'm new, and thought this was a new line. I was wrong.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum


14 WTC TT Part 5 Direct Evidence of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out


www.youtube.com...


13 WTC TT Part 4 Eyewitness Reports of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out



11 WTC TT Part 2 Sudden Onset of Destruction - ESO - Experts Speak Out


www.youtube.com...


14 WTC TT Part 5 Direct Evidence of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out


www.youtube.com...

OFFICIAL COLLAPSE THEORY DEFIES ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS


Since its inception in 2006, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has remained steadfast in its mission of exposing the flaws in the claims made by the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST) — namely, that the impact of two planes and the resulting fires brought down three steel-framed skyscrapers on September 11, 2001. We do scientific, cogent, and comprehensive analyses, backed by forensically-tested, unassailable facts.

One outcome of our insistence on remaining true to our mission is that our ranks of signatories has swelled from less than a dozen to more than 2,300 building and technical professionals who are petitioning the government for a new, independent investigation of the catastrophic destruction at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Additionally, over 20,000 citizens have signed the AE911Truth petition, and more than 250,000 supporters have "liked" our Facebook page. Last August we introduced this once-taboo topic with a 45-minute interview on C-SPAN, foiling a mainstream media blackout and allowing a national audience of millions to finally hear the most poignant — and suppressed — facts about that fatal day.

While much of AE911Truth's success can be ascribed to the perseverance of its founder and the other members of its board of directors, who have remained focused on the science, none of its achievements would have been possible without the professional credibility lent by an ever-growing contingent of professional signatories: structural engineers. The members of this distinguished group, numbering 60 to date, are experts in the capability of steel-frame structures to resist all kinds of forces. Their courage in stepping up to speak the “inconvenient truth” secures for them a venerable place as “the scientific backbone” of AE911Truth.

How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?


By and large, though, building professionals kept their misgivings to themselves. In the ensuing days, weeks, and months, they watched in bewilderment as reputable magazines like Scientific American and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, well-regarded television stations like the BBC and The History Channel, and government agencies including NIST and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trotted out varying and imaginative hypotheses as to how fires could have leveled all three high-rise structures.

Many structural engineers, like Lomba, find the unnatural symmetry of the fall of all three skyscrapers highly suspicious. The rapidity of collapse — eventually acknowledged by NIST as free-fall acceleration — also troubles them. Some note that the fires were weak, low-temperature, and short-lived. Others ask how the tilting upper section of the South Tower, WTC 2, “straightened” itself. Everywhere they look, pieces of the puzzle “don’t fit with what we’ve been told,” these engineers insist.

structural engineers Dr. Zdenek BazantNew evidence that has come to light over the years but was omitted from government reports — dozens of eyewitness testimonies of explosions, unexplained molten iron in the debris pile, and chemical evidence of steel-cutting incendiaries — has only validated these engineers' initial suspicions.

More than a few of them also point to the implausible aspects of civil engineering professor Zdenĕk Bažant's pile driver model, first published a mere two days after 9/11, which these engineers view as a rush to judgment based on extremely limited data, and later codified in his 2008 analysis.


www.ae911truth.org...

I have yet to see anyone debunks what these experts know, but to only ridicule them. How dare they speak out against the official conspiracy theories.

I have yest to see any Peer review confirming the Official narratives? None, Nothing.

I have yet to see any ATS member in 15 years debunk A&E science.

The fact is, I have seen nothing but ridiculing against every scientist that has spoke out, as if these professionals enjoy going against the governments narratives, risking their professions, education, family, and income.

I believe LaBTop put together a wonderful well researched presentation here, and none of you debunkers have attacked any of it with any "real science".



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


What I find strange, this seismic data disinformation is tried over and over again.


What disinformation? You have evidence to your claim? Post some real evidence instead of given only your "opinions".

BTW, the word "disinformation" is not allowed to be used in the 911 threads.

Read ATS TC.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It seems you've missed the point which is:
Ejection of material up to 600' would only be remarkable if the building was somewhat shorter than 600' tall. The 2 towers were more than twice that height which makes it more ordinary and even to be allowed for according to the safety procedures followed by firefighters (when they have good reason to suspect a collapse is likely).

The high risk zone for either of those towers would have been over a kilometre in diameter and there would not have been enough time to clear that area in such a densely populated area. They did however clear a standard zone around WTC7 later in the day.

Solid debris landing 600' away from a 1300' building collapse is NOT a strong case for explosives being used.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I included links which hold outlines and links of scientific statements that seismic data holds no proof of explosives. You need to read through the skeptic forums that references scientific debunking. So, there are not scientists that are skeptics?

From www.popularmechanics.com...
Concerning seismic spikes " Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer) "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.""

Or look up "A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN
EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT" by www.implosionworld.com

No physical evidence recovered from the WTC debris of explosives / blasting caps fragments or ignition system by local firefighters, local bomb squads, engineers, equipment operators, or persons recovering remains. No steel deformed by explosives. This thread is pretty pointless.

How many scientists referenced by this thread's line of seismic proof?



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
A reply to: Pilgrum

Let's first answer a seemingly rationale poster.

The high risk zone for either of those towers would have been over a kilometre in diameter and there would not have been enough time to clear that area in such a densely populated area. They did however clear a standard zone around WTC7 later in the day.

Solid debris landing 600' away from a 1300' building collapse is NOT a strong case for explosives being used.


Pilgrum, you are making ONE GIGANTIC irrational mistake.

Collapse zones are instigated in fear of TOPPLING OVER.
And ONLY in such cases, when a 1300' building breaks at its base or somewhere higher up, and TOPPLES OVER, we can expect solid debris landing 600' away from a 1300' building collapse. Or even further, up to a little over 1300', when such a building would fall like a, cut at its base, tree.

You HOWEVER neglect the fact, that NIST, FEMA, LDEO, and god knows how many more obedient US Institutes, are defending a NATURAL collapse, HOWEVER all the way straight down into the path of the most resistance.
There's no case to make, to defend even a partial toppling over for the 9/11 ones.

I offered many times before the video of the BBC? camera man running for his life for the WTC2S collapse debris that came thundering down behind him, while he held his still filming camera with the lens backwards aimed at the collapse.

And lo and behold, what do we see coming down first?
The huge Vierendeel composite plates of the exterior facade, ONLY about 20 to 30 meters away from the base exterior.

Thus proving that NATURAL collapsing outer shell plates that were pushed outwards BELOW the initiation points, were following their to be expected very narrow parabolae, since those plates were not affected by explosive forces and were pushed out naturally by the debris fronts.

However, the Vierendeel facade plates that were launched from the explosive parts of the collapse initiation fronts ABOVE THEM, were clearly to see in the videos, expelled upwards and then followed huge wide parabolae, so it took much more time for those to get down, thus they followed MUCH LATER in that video of the running camera man, and traveled MUCH FURTHER (600').

And they followed explosive parabolae, just like your goddamn glorious armies use every day to MURDER US, all for GREED and GLORY. Just like the NAZIS.
When do you all understand at last, that in the end, the real NAZI's ... WON.



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join