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.

 

Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

page: 11
31
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Pretty much every one of these pages has source material from engineers, professors, etc

Not to mention it doesn't take diving deep into it for an expert in that field. They probably knew the moment the towers fell what caused them to fall. If it was suspicious that the buildings would fall under such circumstances, most good engineers would immediately have questions they'd want answered. The fact most of them don't seem to have any questions is pretty telling to me. Maybe you're just smarter than all of them?




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Pretty much every one of these pages has source material from engineers, professors, etc

Not to mention it doesn't take diving deep into it for an expert in that field. They probably knew the moment the towers fell what caused them to fall. If it was suspicious that the buildings would fall under such circumstances, most good engineers would immediately have questions they'd want answered. The fact most of them don't seem to have any questions is pretty telling to me. Maybe you're just smarter than all of them?


I just know most architects and engineers are not even aware a third building collapsed that day. Is not like America has not falsified intelligence before, planned false flags and had cover ups before, that got exposed.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Pretty much every one of these pages has source material from engineers, professors, etc

Not to mention it doesn't take diving deep into it for an expert in that field. They probably knew the moment the towers fell what caused them to fall. If it was suspicious that the buildings would fall under such circumstances, most good engineers would immediately have questions they'd want answered. The fact most of them don't seem to have any questions is pretty telling to me. Maybe you're just smarter than all of them?


I just know most architects and engineers are not even aware a third building collapsed that day. Is not like America has not falsified intelligence before, planned false flags and had cover ups before, that got exposed.


You know this how? Have you done a survey? Having done something in the past isn't evidence. They've told the truth about things before too. Is this evidence they're always to be trusted?
edit on 10 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Let's see, you have the court submitted engineer research on both sides of the Aegis Insurance vs WTC 7 Owners that conclude fire lead to collapse. Sowrn and signed.

You have this....

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Mechanics of Collapse of WTC Towers Clarified by Recent Column Buckling Tests of Korol and Sivakumaran
www.civil.northwestern.edu...


Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack
news.uns.purdue.edu...

Aircraft Impact Damage
web.mit.edu...

That is a short list of the free stuff.

And then you have all the peer reviewed WTC studies in journals that conspiracists are to cheap to buy, or to lazy to go to the library to read.

There is a whole other world of scientific journals ignored because it's not free....

edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Pretty much every one of these pages has source material from engineers, professors, etc

Not to mention it doesn't take diving deep into it for an expert in that field. They probably knew the moment the towers fell what caused them to fall. If it was suspicious that the buildings would fall under such circumstances, most good engineers would immediately have questions they'd want answered. The fact most of them don't seem to have any questions is pretty telling to me. Maybe you're just smarter than all of them?


I just know most architects and engineers are not even aware a third building collapsed that day. Is not like America has not falsified intelligence before, planned false flags and had cover ups before, that got exposed.


Or the have the discernment after five minutes of reading the BS from AE 9/11 Truth that truth and science has nothing to do with the truth movement.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't say anything about lasers. I did say that whatever was used was something unconventional.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

The example was for scope. Thus the equivalent to x amount of lasers. I gave you the benefit of doubt. It would take 70 of the world most powerful lasers to vaporize one average person. Say around 200 pounds. Let's round it down to 20 lasers for every 200 pounds of tower material to get your false narrative.

One tower total is 500,000 tons of material. Let's subtract out the steel at 200,000 tons. Wait, let's not. The energy weapon would have to work through the windows and outer shell of the tower to weaken the steel.

500,000 ton x 2000 lbs / ton x 20 lasers / 200 lbs...

So, it would realistically take the equivalent of 100,000,000 of world's most powerful lasers to "vaporize" the tower to collapse.

If each laser weighted an unrealistic 20 lbs, the mechanism would weight 1,000,000 tons. The worlds 3rd largest cargo ship weighs around 200,000 tons.

edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added

edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added

edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

And again, the dust at the WTC was from grinding of material.

"Vaporized" material would be turned into some sort of molten gaseous liquid super hot something. The something would cause burnt lungs if inhaled? Claims of vehicles hit at ground level? I would think vegitation would burn up? And the vapor would turn into distinct crystallized solids. Solids with different properties than dust present at the WTC.
edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

It appears you continue to assume lasers or something conventional was used. Something unknown to the public was used.
There was not much heat at all. The accounts of molten metal at ground zero for weeks are simply not true. It appears certain publications altered official photos to make it look like crews were dealing with that. If there was truly molten metal the crews would not have been able to use standard hydraulic equipment, they can't handle that kind of heat.

If you look at some of the field effect experiments that John Hutchison has done you will see similar results. He has recorded fires on metal with little to no heat. Something caused most of the metal in the buildings to turn to dust and grinding of material was it.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120




It appears you continue to assume lasers or something conventional was used. Something unknown to the public was used.

You are believing in magic weapons with no proof.
Even Woods doesn't have proof.
She talks the exact same way they did during the Salem witch trials.

Take your thinking one step farther.
If a weapon could dustify things with no evidence,wouldn't we have used it after 911?
Imagine what it would do to North Korea's nuke weapons factory.
And yet they keep setting off more nukes.

Woods is no different than Gage.
Both of their incomes depend on speculation.
If either one of them presented real final proof of their speculation, they would be set for life money wise.
Their names would be like Woodward and Bernstein.
And yet they both continue their dog and pony shows.
edit on 11-9-2017 by samkent because: spelling



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Again, it doesn't have to be lasers. It could be some other weapon, but the energy to vaporize the building material would be the same. A microwave is more efficient than an oven in many application. But it still takes the same amount of heat input to melt an Ice cube if it's in a microwave or oven.

So to "vaporize" just one tower would still take roughly the equivalent energy output of 100,000,000 of the world most powerful lasers.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




So to "vaporize" just one tower would still take roughly the equivalent energy output of 100,000,000 of the world most powerful lasers.

Just give it to him in megawatts so he can count the number of power plants it would take to run it.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

wow! 16 years later and some truthers are still on lasers?????


Its been a few years samkent, hope all is well by you brother. Good to see you still putting up a good fight.

Man, I see that they havent bothered doing any research at all, outside of the truther nonsense sites.


In regards to the OP, seems to me that nothign new will be presented. I can predict that no matter what they find if it doesnt say "ZOOMMMGGG! Inside jeeerrbbb!!!!!!" the truthers are not going to believe it and ignore it all. 16 years they havent changed a bit. Not one new idea.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

She has a book with over 500 pages of proof that something unconventional was used on 9/11.

This book is a forensic analysis of what effectively is a crime scene. Ground Zero and the surrounding areas were photographed countless thousands of times, yet no one really assessed all of the phenomena found in these photographs. What is presented in her book is not a theory and it is not speculation. It is evidence. It is the body of empirical evidence that must be explained in order to determine what happened at Ground Zero.

Anyone declaring who did what or how they did it before they have determined what was done is merely promoting either speculation or propaganda. The popular chant, "9/11 was an inside job," is, scientifically speaking, no different from the chant that "19 bad guys with box cutters did it." Neither one is the result of a scientific investigation supported by evidence that would be admissible in court. Neither identifies what crime was committed or how it was committed.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I never used the word "vaporize" to describe what happened and neither does Dr. Wood.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I did not say our government did it. I do think they know who did and remain silent. Go on YouTube and look up the white van full of Israelis that filmed the whole thing from a nearby subdivision. Take a good look at what happened to Bldg 7. You are either ignorant, and you do not want to know the truth. a reply to: growler



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

How about you post an actual example of the phenomena, and let's start from there.

You mean cars that caught on fire from the smoldering ruble of the towers. Are you talking about cars at ground level, inline with unscathed telephone poles, trees, overpasses, tall buildings that should have been in the line of sight of the energy weapon. An energy weapon the could harness and transmit the energy output equivalent to 100,000,000 of the worlds most powerful lasers. A weapon that probably would weigh more than 5 cargo ships?
edit on 12-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120




She has a book with over 500 pages of proof that something unconventional was used on 9/11.

Pure speculation.



This book is a forensic analysis of what effectively is a crime scene.

She is interpreting pictures her own way.
" forensic " denotes scientific methods.
Shes does not use real science.
She uses speculation on the gullible.



What is presented in her book is not a theory and it is not speculation. It is evidence.

You have a very low threshold for evidence.

Ask yourself why other scientists haven't boarded the Woods train.
Ask yourself why she was fired from her professor position.
Now you know why she keeps pushing her book.

She is nothing more than a cyber snake oil salesman.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Bummer! It's scheduled to be finished in April 2018.


Project Dates

May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

ine.uaf.edu...

Smart move to present the first part now, though. Alphabet agencies wont be amused...
Thanks for the heads up, I'll need another reminder next year. lol.




new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join