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 Challenge

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Gah, my mistake. I was just looking for the gray smoke and totally missed the obvious fact that a whole building was missing in that picture. I was wondering why there was so much smoke around the ground.. x.x

Here's an alternate, to make up for my brainless mistake:





[edit on 4-7-2005 by bsbray11]




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!




I am still waiting for someone to put together a rational critique of the NIST report that is based on science, or engineering.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
We are waiting to make every connection absolutely clear so that there is not even a 1/1000th chance that it can be debunked by the disinfo agents.



You're kidding, right? The job of a disinfo agent is not to prove your evidence wrong. Their job is to deny everything you say until you get tired of arguing with them.

I don't think we can find definitive, absolute "proof". Everything we have available is circumstancial evidence. Since they illegally removed all the debris from the crime scene, we have no way to test for explosives.

Testing the debris for explosive residue would be the only "court worthy" proof I can think of for the "demolition theory". And even if you had proof what would you do with it?

The NIST report doesn't disprove the "demolition theory" either. You would need a negative result from an explosive residue test, to disprove it. That leaves the whole thing at a stalemate.

And let's not forget that even if the NIST report somehow disproved demolition, that would only account for one of the anomolies. But, the report is a good way to keep everyone's attention busy. Think about it. Even if you disproved the NIST report line for line, it still wouldn't prove anything.

Not picking on you personally. This same null effect, from forcing a stalemate, can be seen in many different examples. I just use the time to learn their methods.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!



With all the material in those buildings it was definitely a highly toxic chemical cloud trail. And there were airplanes involved. I think you may be on to something here!



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!


My point was that the fires had weakened before the collapses, and were cooler than they had been earlier. That is evident from the colors and volume of the smoke, but the smoke itself isn't the issue. Cooling fires = cooling steel. And of course you didn't even pretend to respond to any of the other points I brought up.

The points I brought up, btw, directly contradict the NIST report, because the NIST report suggests that steel weakened from fire was indeed the reason the buildings fell.

Check this article out, for example:


There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."


National Institute of Standards and Technology: this is NIST!

The article continues, contradicting NIST's report in a very scientific and professional manner:


We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.


It goes on, but that's all that you need, really, to get an idea of where the flaws in NIST's report are. But since it's not final yet, but just a draft, I suppose you could probably still shrug this off anyway, HR.

You can find the article here: www.911truth.org...

And the references mentioned in the quote are:

1. www.boulderweekly.com...

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. wtc.nist.gov...

4. www.voicesofsept11.org...

5. wtc.nist.gov... (pg 11)

6. www.forging.org...


The claim that the fires were hot enough to sufficiently damage the steel is crucial to the argument that the WTC buildings fell in accordance with the official story. In fact, that is the argument. That there is evidence directly contradicting this claim not only compromises the NIST reports, but every official government report to date. I would think you would care a little more, than make a mocking off-hand comment and refuse to comment further.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource

Originally posted by Lanotom
We are waiting to make every connection absolutely clear so that there is not even a 1/1000th chance that it can be debunked by the disinfo agents.




I don't think we can find definitive, absolute "proof". Everything we have available is circumstancial evidence. Since they illegally removed all the debris from the crime scene, we have no way to test for explosives.

Testing the debris for explosive residue would be the only "court worthy" proof I can think of for the "demolition theory". And even if you had proof what would you do with it?


Photographs of steel beams that appear to be melted with a torch in an unusual pattern should be enough proof to show that thermite was used.
I am speaking melted ends of beams and (possible magnesium) ribbon line surface embedded burns.

And of course this will also prove how it was done without the notice of loud explosives that are used in typical non government demolitions.

These hundreds of photos were taken immediately following the demolition.


Edit:Sorry I didn't answer your what would we do with it question.

Well since it is already a well known fact by the masses in the US and nothing is done about it we would have no option but to take "our definitive proof" to another government and let them make a mockery of it.


[edit on 4-7-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I have to say that I have not spent much time looking at 911 conspiracies and you will rarely see me post on this particular board.
The size of this thread attracted me to it and I have to say this thread has the most disinfo tactics I have ever seen. I personally do not know if WTC1, 2, and 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition. In my opinion it is probably disinformation to confuse and discredit the matter. Anyway here is what I've seen on this thread.

The first disinfo tactic is this threads challenge its self. It is the tactic known as Enigmas have no solution.

I hereby issue a challeng to those who believe that the collapse of WTC1, 2, and or 7 was the result of a controlled demolition.

The NIST has released it's draft report on the collapse.

I challenge those who disagree with this report to do so.

The NIST full report has 2635 pages. To challenge this community to go through all that is to paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those who are not deeply submerged into this conspiracy (someone like me) to loose interest without having to address the actual issues. Someone would have to know a heck of a lot about this conspiracy and the information in the NIST report.



The second tactic used is Sidetracking opponents with name calling and ridicule

Well then I'm sure that you and your crack 9/11 research teams will be able to pick apart the report. Certainly there is some data that you have that conclusivley refutes the findings? some research, some structural analysis, something.

Why don't you bring it forward and submit it to them?

Put up or shut up.


Whats' a matta? Chicken?

This particular tactic is used to turn off people from supporting opponents out of fear of gaining the same treatment, and again avoiding having to deal with issues.


Next is the Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil tactic.

I have been through thread after thread after thread with Howards Roark in regards to the demolition of the WTC complex, and he still won't address some of my questions raised in those, so why the seeming hostility in this particular thread Djarums? Can I start a thread demanding Roark address my question as to why Marvin Bush's security company removed the bomb sniffing dogs from the complex the weekend before 9-11 and expect the same fervor?

As the qustions never get a response, this tactic is used to not address the issues. Just pretend the question was never asked.


This is just from the first page.
I must applaud the people who have directly pushed against the disinfo tactics. I think I will use up my 3 votes for way above to secret on those people

I think its great that we all have a place like ATS to confront disinformation. I just wish more people could see it happening.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Umbrax, I just signed up to post on this thread, and by my second post I had already noticed the exact same thing.

Of the information I presented in my first post contradicting the official story and thereby the NIST report, HR responds to all of it with a simple mocking statement,


O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!


From the way my first post was ignored with all the information it presented, and the way I've noticed other members criticizing HR for ignoring so many other comments, it's already beginning to seem to me as though HR only tries to debate when he figures he can come on 'on top', so to speak. Otherwise, you apparently get an off-hand, sarcastic remark, and he's off on his way again.

I would appreciate an intelligent critique of my last two posts, especially by Mr. HR himself, but I think I can already figure that that isn't likely to happen from what I'm gathering. Maybe it'll be a little more likely with this posting, but I guess we'll have to see.

Last two posts of mine: critique them in a scientific, technical fashion, if you don't mind; the way youv'e been requesting others respond to you.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
The first disinfo tactic is this threads challenge its self. It is the tactic known as Enigmas have no solution.

I hereby issue a challeng to those who believe that the collapse of WTC1, 2, and or 7 was the result of a controlled demolition.

The NIST has released it's draft report on the collapse.

I challenge those who disagree with this report to do so.



You are so right that Coward Roark avoids the questions of importance.

My conclusion of the NIST reports was as follows and posted in the start of the thread.


OK I read the report and it is very redundant in textual content and has a total of 13 blank pages.

Most of the content is graphics and insignificant illustrations.

Nowhere in the report did I read about sampling being performed for residue of fuel or other explosives.
Also I did not read anything about testing of two similar steel pieces for density comparison (bending) of pieces that were and weren't exposed to heat or of the properties of said similar pieces.

My opinion is that reading the report was a waste of my time and the investigation could have been better preformed by a pair of high school freshmen.


I wish HR would answer my one simple question...

The fireman pulls the red fire engine. I think I can.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
These hundreds of photos were taken immediately following the demolition.



I posted a 300mb video a page or so back. It has some relatively close up video of debris.

You would also need supporting photo evidence of verified thermite explosions (or whichever explosive you are trying to prove).




Well since it is already a well known fact by the masses in the US and nothing is done about it we would have no option but to take "our definitive proof" to another government and let them make a mockery of it.



I find it refreshing to see you are not disillusioned. The majority of "answers" I hear is write your congressman or march with signs.

This might actually get somewhere if taken to the U.N. because it doesn't take much evidence to baffle those guys. We'll take in some pictures and a glass vile of 'wtc dust'.

Seriously though, I'm fairly certain the U.S. won't bow to demands, against the standing POTUS, from another country or the U.N.; anymore than they bow to pressure from home. I think this based on historic precedent.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in no way trying to dampen anyone's research efforts. However, the importance of integrating the full reality of the situation can not be overstated.

[edit on 7-4-2005 by ShadowHasNoSource]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
When the towers fell, pieces of the box columns were ejected outwards for distances of hundreds of feet. Not only were the columns ripped from the spandrel plates they were welded and bolted to, but they were sliced into 12-foot lengths.



The government's explanation for this is "compressed air" expelling outward as each floor collapsed down on the next. Well, let's take a look at one of the plane impacts. 395,000 pounds of plane striking the building at 530 mph (777 ft/s) and the explosion of 23,980 gallons of jet fuel managed to throw heavy debris 300-350 feet. Light debris did fly further, but remember we're talking about the steel pieces. I've put a scale in here showing the 208 feet wide tower and the debris being thrown a further 300-350 feet beyond it.



In fact, I'm being very generous. Most of what you see above is glass, aeroplane bits and office debris being expelled out. I don't see many pieces of steel columns. Do you?

But when the towers collapsed, 36 foot long pieces of steel were sliced into 12 foot segments, ripped from welded and bolted spandrel plates, and, now weighing 880 pounds each, expelled horizontally outwards for distances of up to 300 feet (conservative estimate).

What possible force could snap steel beams like twigs and throw 880-pound pieces of them hundreds of feet sideways? Do you HONESTLY think "compressed air" could do...

THIS??



Neither do I......

The only explanation for such EXPLOSIVE FORCE is...EXPLOSIVE CHARGES.

[edit on 2005/7/4 by wecomeinpeace]


Well, not so true. You guys come up with some interesting theories (seriously) but quite often they aren't backed up with logic or science. Have you ever heard of ballistic trajectory? If you apply some force to an object (say shove it out a window) from the 90th floor of a building, will it then fall straight to the ground like a Wyllie Cyote cartoon? No, it won't.

It will fall pretty much like the objects you have pictured above. Or like I'm picturing here from another location.



Do the objects you are showing from a frame of one of the videos of the towers falling actually fly straight out? No, actually they dont, they cascade down like a waterfall, or a fountain. If you actually watch the video(s) of the tower(s) falling, you will clearly see nothing massive is thrown straight out, it instead falls down along a parabollic curve. (ballistic fall)

If you accelerate an object to 1m/s (about 2.2 mph), and that object is on the 100th floor, how far away from the building (not accounting for any wind at all) will it be when it reaches the 50th floor?

(Answer: about 20.4 feet away from the side of the building.)

But don't take my word for it! This will require some math, but I'll include a handy-dandy online calculator for you to double check this with (plus I can't draw the quadratic formula here in text) and I know how so many folks on ATS don't like facts and instead love the ideas instead of the science.


So, instead here is a handy-dandy graphic which you can click on to access an online calculator where you can punch in your numbers and try this yourself to see how far away from the building an object would be given what amount of force was applied to it at the start; you can also assume a 0 (zero) degree trajectory, even though I think some of the objects would have had a positive and negative initial trajectory. [note: in order to calculate this you will of course need to use a negative number for y since it's a negative height]



The WTC was 1362 feet high (this is the shorter of the two towers, one was actually 1368 but we'll go with the shorter one. ) This translates into
414.8652m (1 foot = 0.3046m)

Each floor is therefore "about" 3.77115m high or 12.37 ft

So, I guess the question you're asking is this: how fast would an object have to be moving for it to fall 300 feet away from a start point that was 1350 feet high?

Well the answer is about 32.6 feet per second (which translates into about 22.2 mph). This is providing, of course, that you wanted to know how fast it was moving initially (at the start of it's fall from up top the building) if the object landed 300 feet away from the base of the tower. Is 22.2 mph a fast speed? I really don't think it is, especially when you consider forces acting on those objects (all that weight falling down onto each floor).

But wait! Lets not stop here!

You can see that the building is falling onto itself, so the beams from higher floors are actually getting enertia from their fall, then they're bouncing off other steel beams below and off other "stuff" [i.e. concrete, chairs, desks, people, etc] being blown out of the building by wind force. I'm pretty sure a significant amount of this enertia came from falling->bouncing more so than just windforce from each floor collapsing onto each other. How much enertia (kenetic energy) would be stored up in an 880lb object that fell 3 floors (37 feet), and then bounced off and outwards form other debris below? Something significant to translate into >= 22mph wouldn't you think? It gets too messy here to try to actually figure it all out simply.

Calculating change of direction:
Velocity = SQR ((Radius - track / 2) * f * g)
Radius = Chord^2 / (8 * Middle Ordinate) + (Middle Ordinate / 2)'
or
Velocity = SQR (Radius * f * g)
Radius = Velocity^2 / (f * g)

I'm sure you get the idea... But if we keep this simple and rely on the fact that we all do know that acceleration due to gravity is (g = 9.8 m/s/s) Well 37 feet is about 11.3m so,
11.3 = .5 * 9.8 * t * t
11.3 = 4.75 * t *t
2.38 = t * t
t = sqrt(2.38)
t = 1.54

So, the bar would fall 3 floors in about 1.54 seconds, before bouncing off the rubble below and deflecting outwards.
t = sqrt(2x/a) : where 'x' is the distance in meters and 'a' is 9.8 m/s/s
15.01m/s (54km/h)

The bar would have been doing about 49.5 ft/s or (49.5*0.681818182) = 33mph when it bounced off the rubble 3 floors below.

(I think you can see it's not hard for these massive 880lb objects to get a whole lot of velocity just from the action of the floors collapsing in order to end up 300 feet away from the building when you understand what a ballistic fall is).

But then there's a 3rd issue with some of the falling debris. We can see in most of the images larger chunks of steel beams. In some cases multiple story lengths. So, these must have levered outwards (fell outwards like a tree falls) and then broke off or were smashed off by other falling pillars. How much enertia would these have? I bet you can agree that they could quite conceivable be doing 22mph or more as well (outwards and downwards at an angle).

In all cases, it's not hard for objects doing relatively small speeds at the top of the building (or middle of the building for that matter) to end up a fair distance away on the ground. This didn't require any detonations, it didn't require and bombs, and it really doesn't need a whole lot of "wind force" but I certainly do see how those floors violently collapsing onto each other would generate an amazing amount of force.

Hope this didn't break anyones brain...


I suppose, "How much force would it take to horizontally accelerate a steel beam that was 880lbs to 20mph?" is the next question. But I'm too tired to keep on typing and I'm sure many other people on this forum are much better at physics than I am.


[edit on 5-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I personally think HR is trying to do something good.....I mean...well the fact is HR we are all too lazy to do go through hundreds of pages and pick it apart, I mean I have read a bit of the documentation, But I couldn't imagine going through even half of it and ripping it apart.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
You have assumed a parabolic trajectory where objects have a positive angle of trajectory at launch. If, as the government claims, the potential energy of the towers is the only active force in the system, then parabolic trajectory of debris would debunk the government's claims completely and could only be explained by additional forces, i.e. explosions.

If you wish to adhere to your positive parabolic trajectory, then you support the explosives hypothesis. If not, then you must solve it again for horizontal launch. I can't be bothered doing your work for you, so here it is from your own link.



Your initial system was not only using a deceptive trajectory assumption, but it also assumes a vacuum environment. Once you have completed the horizontal trajectory calculation, you must then factor in the air resistance of the ejected steel beams as a laterally vectored kinetic energy sink. In addition, the flat surfaces on the beams will make for much greater resistance than if they were curved, and will lessen their horizontal range by an amount that is significant.

Air resistance/drag (D) is dependent on four basic elements:
    • The density of the air. (p)
    • The square of the velocity of the object. (v^2)
    • The cross-sectional area of the object. (A)
    • The drag co-efficient of the object. (C)


In a simplified system (ignoring factors such as wind direction and speed):

D = 0.5 x p x v^2 x A x C

Here are the dimensions of the beams, have fun:

external image



Your speed calculations of the 880lbs beams' initial fall of "three floors" (
I thought it was "pancaking a floor at a time") before they strike "concrete, chairs, desks, and people" and then are ejected out of the building at speeds of upwards of 10m/s (this according to your positive angle trajectory analysis) assumes the beams' fall is unobstructed, i.e. free fall. The debunkers and the government vehemently claim that the buildings did NOT fall in free fall. If you wish to adhere to your free fall analysis, then you have debunked the government claims. If not, then you support the explosives hypothesis.


Once you have finished with the calculations, you must then calculate the amount of force required to accelerate an 880lbs (400Kg) steel beam in a virtual instant (a bounce is not a constant accelerative force) to whatever speed you come up with to justify the range of the trajectories. Somehow I think "bouncing off other steel beams below and off "other 'stuff' [i.e. concrete, chairs, desks, people, etc] being blown out of the building by wind force" will be insufficient. I'm sure you remember Newton's second law of motion, "The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object."

Or, simplified as F(net) = m x a. Let us know what you figure out.

You mock others for "loving the ideas instead of the science", however your "bouncing beams", "stuff", and "wind force" ideas come across as just that.

But your theory's final death blow is the gargantuan energy sinks inherent in the pulverization of the "concrete, chairs, desks, people" and the snapping of the trusses, the beams, and the beam welds and bolts. Falling beams pulverizing the concrete into 10 micron dust (mean size) and snapping other beams would leave no energy for the rocketing of those same beams horizontally out of the building at 10+m/s. The government claims that the elements in the towers were pulverized by the kinetic energy of the falling debris. If you wish to adhere to your "bouncing beams" theory, then you have debunked the government's claims. If not, then you support the explosives hypothesis.

In order for the pancake theory to hold up, the only active force is the potential energy in the top part of the tower and the resultant kinetic energy when it descends. IN FACT, the potential energy in an ENTIRE tower, not just counting the top collapsing section, is not enough to cause the pulverization of 90 000 lbs of concrete and to cause a dust cloud at such a rapid rate and huge volume of expansion:



Originally posted by CatHerder
This will require some math, but I'll include a handy-dandy online calculator for you...
[...]
...I know how so many folks on ATS don't like facts and instead love the ideas instead of the science.

[...]
But wait! Lets not stop here!
[...]
Hope this didn't break anyones brain...


Baiting and mocking. Why do you debunkers always have to bait, mock and sneer? Does it make you feel good? Is it a valid debating tactic in your eyes? Do you get excitement or emotional satisfaction from it? Or are you hoping that a moderator will come in and intimidate us when we retort? Please help me to understand. I would like to debate in a civil environment, and I would like to be able to admit that I may be wrong on a point without fear of derision, but setting such a combative, confrontational tone to the debate forces people to deal in absolutes of right or wrong. Perhaps that is the goal of this tactic. Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

But, since you have set the snide tone here, for the meantime while we wait for your calculations to come back, I will attempt to remain civil and just say this...



May the "wind force" be with you...

[edit on 2005/7/5 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I just thought I'd throw in the fact that the box beams weren't anywhere close to 2 1/2" at the points of impact. At the very tip top they were about 1/4" of an inch, starting out from 5" at the base and going narrower and narrower.

Also, the perimeter supports weren't blown out by bombs. If bombs were used they were used to sever the box beam supports in the internal frame using large shearing charges. Shearing charges aren't going to be the cause of the perimeter beams flying outward. I can tell you that a shearing charge has almost zero effect on steel that it's not placed directly against, and it'd make no sense to bomb the perimeter supports since they didn't support the building but held against lateral load.

The force of the building falling would be more than enough to snap those perimeter sections and send them flying like toothpicks.

In my opinion, if bombs were used:

Small shearing charges on internal core box beams at the top, growing successively larger every 10 stories down.

Extremely large charges in the basement, where the mystery sprinkler system 'repairmen' were documented to be.

Blow the basement, then blow the charges from top down. You can see vaporized concrete flying out the windows (so-called squibs) before the cascade for 2 - 4 sections before they're overtaken by debris.

Arguing over the diameter of the debris cloud doesn't prove things either way, if you ask me. There are way better things to point out to support the conspiracy. This reminds me of the 'plane didn't hit the Pentagon' stuff.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!

I am still waiting for someone to put together a rational critique of the NIST report that is based on science, or engineering.


NIST report was based on science and engineering? Interesting, because they didn't even use the WTC blueprints to determine what happened.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Ok, first lets talk about the ejection of debris and such from the building as it collapsed.

If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that there are three primary forces at work moving the debris about.

The first is obviously gravity. This is the ultimate source of the energy of the collapse.

The second is the air pressure from the collapsing floors. Since over 95% of the building is air, that is a considerable force.

In a real controlled demolition situation, the windows of the building to be demolished are removed first for obvious reasons.

Finally there is one other force that everyone seems to have forgotten about. This is the mechanical action of the collapsing structure itself. As the structure collapsed, the beams and columns buckled, twisted, bent, and fractured. If a beam or column was stressed by bending before the bolted connection failed, there would quite likely be a kickback, like a tree falling.

Given the enormous amount of gravitational energy present in the collapse, I see no problem with the motion of a few miscellaneous pieces of steel and aluminum cladding.

In fact I find it kind of funny how the argument has changed from ”It must have been a deliberate demolition because the buildings fell perfectly into their own footprints” to ”It must have been a deliberate demolition because building debris was scattered all over the place.”



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

And before you get your shorts all in a bunch over the "40 ton something or other" this is what he was refering to:



It is a 40 ton hydraulic press that is common in machine shops.


Dear Howard,
I thought i would send you another pic for your 40 ton hydraulic press collection.
Cheers,
Shroud

40 ton Pacific 40/8 hydraulic press, 1970 model


She's a beauty, much better than yours!





posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John

Originally posted by HowardRoark
O.K. here is a new theory for you:

9/11 was the ultimate chemtrail opperation!

I am still waiting for someone to put together a rational critique of the NIST report that is based on science, or engineering.


NIST report was based on science and engineering? Interesting, because they didn't even use the WTC blueprints to determine what happened.



In Appendix A
are many of the original design documents.


In wtc.nist.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">this report they describe their tasks as:


Development of structural databases of the primary components of WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers. These electronic databases were developed from original computer printouts of the structural design documents, including modifications made after construction. The task included the scanning and digitization of the original drawing books, a four-step quality control procedure, cross section property calculations, and development of the relational databases to link the generated database files into a format suitable for the development of the structural models.



and from here:



To obtain information for the collapse analysis of the buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology reviewed design and construction documents, correspondence, and memoranda related to the building projects; interviewed individuals involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of the buildings; obtained information from regulatory and emergency services agencies of New York City; and reviewed books and published journal and magazine articles related to the WTC building projects. Information obtained from various sources are synthesized and summarized in this report.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark

And before you get your shorts all in a bunch over the "40 ton something or other" this is what he was refering to:



It is a 40 ton hydraulic press that is common in machine shops.


Dear Howard,
I thought i would send you another pic for your 40 ton hydraulic press collection.
Cheers,
Shroud

40 ton Pacific 40/8 hydraulic press, 1970 model


She's a beauty, much better than yours!






Uh, dude, the difference is that one is commonly found in a light duty machine shop such as would be present in the WTC basement, and the other would be found in high volume commercial machine shops where its high cost would be justified by its regular use, for production purposes, and not for the occaisonal repair of a pump bearing.

I’ll leave the reader to figure out which is which.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah_John
Also, the perimeter supports weren't blown out by bombs. If bombs were used they were used to sever the box beam supports in the internal frame using large shearing charges. Shearing charges aren't going to be the cause of the perimeter beams flying outward. I can tell you that a shearing charge has almost zero effect on steel that it's not placed directly against, and it'd make no sense to bomb the perimeter supports since they didn't support the building but held against lateral load.


There is a technology that has been around since the cold war to create self-destructible structures, such as extra-national missile silos and submarine bases. It consists of wrapping the concrete rebar in C4 before the concrete is poured. I didn't want to bring it up now because I'm still looking into it and I know the debunkers will sneer, s'n-word' and jab and say, "where's the proof for your crackpot theory?" So I'll just say a little at this point.

C4 has a shelf-life of 10 years, but when sealed in concrete it has a shelf-life many times that. It is purported that in the video documentary of the construction of this (originally) government building, construction was slowed and workers were evacuated, while another crew with a security escort poured a "special anti corrosion, anti vibration resistant coating on the rebar of the concrete core structure"and in the floor corrugations, and also took over certain butt welding "because the protective coating was flammable".

I can almost hear the alarm bells ringing in Disinfo Central Command, because I believe this is the only explanation that could provide enough explosive force in direct contact with the concrete of the floors and the core to pulverize it to dust, to provide the floor by floor explosions, and to provide the explosive and expansive force to snap and eject huge steel beams, and to produce such a mammoth dust cloud.

And if it were true, it would imply a conspiracy thirty years in the planning and making. A frightening prospect...more so than I originally thought.

Now come the jeers and dismissals.



HowardRoark wrote
In fact I find it kind of funny how the argument has changed from ”It must have been a deliberate demolition because the buildings fell perfectly into their own footprints” to ”It must have been a deliberate demolition because building debris was scattered all over the place.”


No, many of us have maintained all along that WTC7 was brought down by conventional controlled demolition, while WTC1 & 2 were brought down by an unconventional controlled demolition. Although, the destruction of the towers does still show the hallmarks of certain essential factors in conventional demolition, such as the explosions in the basement levels to sever the base supports.

[edit on 2005/7/5 by wecomeinpeace]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join