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: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Your wrong Rockets don't drop before firing so they were probably missile's with rocket engines or rockets themselves.




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
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.

Specifically, I challenge you to submit your comments on the report.

If you do so, please post your comments here also.

I also issue this challenge to any of those who are responsible for the myriad of WTC Demo sites on the 'net.

I would very much like to see the specific, technical reasons why you do not think that the draft reports are correct.

I predict that I will not receive many ATS points for this thread.





Ok, after much reading of this thread:

My comments on the report.

First off, the report that Howard cites

(NIST NCSTAR 1 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster
Final Report of the
National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the
World Trade Center Towers )

Was not written to determine why the towers collapsed. As stated in the beginning paragraph, the goal of the report is to:

(from page 2 of above-cited report)



The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:
• To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster after terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers.
• To serve as the basis for:
− Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
− Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
− Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
− Improved public safety

The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;


So, the report is not written to determine why the towers collapsed. The report is written with the understanding that the jet impacts were the sole cause.

This is not a report on a criminal investigation, and it is not an objective examination of the destruction of the towers.

NIST is a nonregulatory agency under the department of commerce.

NIST took the perspective that the towers were destroyed by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire, then searched for ways to back up that theory. Thus, no tests for explosive residue on the steel were conducted.

Also, despite the fact that they maintain heat caused the structure to eventually collapse, there was no investigation of crystalline structure of the steel to determine the temperatures the steel underwent!

IRONICALLY: The NIST report relies entirely on photographs, video, and eyewitness accounts - which is exactly the information demolition theorists use.

Why does the NIST report rely on eyewitness accounts and visual records? They rely on those for the same reason demolition theorists do: Because the actual WTC blueprints have never been released to the public. They weren't even available to the NIST for purposes of this investigation.

The NIST report also has a few large and obvious errors in fact.

1 - Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity.

Untrue: The towers were designed to survive an impact by a Boeing 707.

Anyway, let's get to the meat:



In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag.


Sag - by how much? If the metals had been examined, investigators could have determined by how much they sagged by seeing how hot they got. This wasn't done. Only 256 pieces - less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the buildings' steel - was 'examined.'



The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent.


If the fire was raging on the floors were the perimeter columns were severed by impact- why would the floor 'pulling' the perimeter columns have any affect on the capacity of those columns to support higher columns? They already have no vertical connection and are not vertically supporting anything.

Also, the perimeter walls were not supporting the building. The core was supporting the building. The perimeter walls held against lateral loads. Sadly, we don't know how much strength this wall had due to lack of official blueprints.



The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.


Overall, I think the NIST report sucks. No testing of the metals was conducted, so we'll never know how much the floors 'sagged' or 'expanded.' Hell, they could have thrown some of the 256 pieces they collected and burnt them in jet fuel for a few hours just to test how much they would expand, but they didn't. Basically, the NIST report is pretty shoddy work, not even as good a piece of speculation as a lot of demolition theorists.

Also, the metals that were analyzed were cleaned at the recieving grounds before going to NIST campus to get rid of lead paint and asbestos. I hope investigators tested for explosives at the crime scene... Oh wait, they didn't.

Also, in the draft cited, NIST says that the towers would not have collapsed if the aircraft impacts had not knocked fireproofing off of trusses and columns. Well, how much fireproofing was 'knocked off?' This is really blue-skying it on an entirely ridiculous level. How about some tests to see how WTC fireproofing (drywall and spray-on gypsum mostly) was 'knocked off' by impacts, then conduct a burn test?

Also, they completely fail to cite a little fact about the WTCs: The 1975 fire. The fire burned from the 9 - 19th floors, and took 125 firemen to defeat, injuring 16. It did no damage to the core or the floors despite taking about 3 hours to conquer.

Also, the WTC was constructed much like the Broadgate building, which underwent a very serious fire in 1990. The flooring was corrugated metal with concrete on top over trusses - which should sound familiar to WTC conspiracists.



Here's a picture of how they looked after a four hour fire with extremely high temperatures. Not bad. Of course it doesn't look exactly like WTC did, but it gives an idea. What would have given a great idea of the WTC would have been for NIST to replicate the damaged floors and burn them instead of guessing through pictures, which is exactly what 'pod missile laser' conspiracists are doing also.

Another huge factor in the NIST report is that they exlude any comments on damage control measures taken by building engineering. Why? That makes no sense whatsoever.

One more point - even though I could write for a week. The draft report states that the WTC sprinkler system didn't work because the pipe bringing water up to the afflicted floors was severed in the plane collisions. Other reports say that there were standpipes and reserves in floors above the fires. Of course without blueprints from Port Authority and other organizations that built them subsequent to the 1975 fire, we don't know for sure.

Like I said, the report is far from conclusive and does little to allay the curiousity of conspiracists and theorists because it excludes so much.

With both blueprints and the evidence gone, re-creations of the WTC and its disaster are the only ways to prove who has the right theory - demolitionists or 'The Man.'


I'm waiting for a private citizen or group to spend a couple million dollars on either a scale model of the WTC or a partial rebuild for the sole purpose of burning it and demolitioning it in an attempt to recrete the disaster. For me, it's the only way to be sure.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
You know, it's funny how HowardRoark has been calling for people to refute the findings of the NIST report throughout the entire thread, selectively picking his battles as he goes, and calling everyone "chicken". Yet now, as over the last three pages people have actually been bothered to begin to pick apart a biased report with 1000s of pages and a preconceived result, and to directly refute the claims, assumptions and suppositions therein...Howard suddenly disappears. My guess is that he will come back in a couple of pages after this little spate of activity has been forgotten, with excuses such as "I have a life outside ATS ya know", or, he will return shortly and flippantly dismiss the whole lot with one to two line responses.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
If he does, we can simply restate the information and try to push it on him. There's only so far you can go in avoiding replying and ignoring information before you simply become a troll, and I'm sure HR wouldn't want to be seen as a troll.

IMO, anyone who gives an in-depth look at the evidence a fair go will see for themselves that something was up on 9/11 that we weren't informed of. As more and more of the case is presented, any honest skeptics will eventually have to react to that fact. If any of you listened to the 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast not too long ago, you'd remember that even those arguing against the conspiracy admitted that the buildings were demolished. There's just no reasonable denial of it anymore. All they could do was say that the demolitions were to try to save lives, or were unintentional, or some such bs. We need to start pushing to get this information out to a wider audience now, so people will wise up to all these so-called "terrorist" attacks.

Btw, I appreciate the welcome messages I got over U2U after I signed up. Since apparently I can't send any back until I have 20 posts, I just thought I'd say that here.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
You don't even have to know anything about physics to know that the collapses of the towers was controlled demo. All it takes is simple math and common sense.

The NIST report states:

pg33
The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below. Within 12 s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble.


So NIST confirms the time of the collapse was 12s. The towers were 417m (1368ft) tall. Free fall from this height under gravity takes 9.23s discounting wind resistance. So that means, according to the govt.'s ridiculous "pancake theory", the resistance of each subsequent floor collision added a total of only 2.77s to the collapse time. Since there were 95 floors below the initial collapse point of WTC1, each floor slowed the collapse by a mean time of 2.78/95 = 0.029s or 29/1000ths of a second. You can't snap your fingers that fast, folks! To give you an idea how fast that is, think of the time counters they have for sports events, the Olympics, etc. The numbers in the 100ths of a second range are just a blur. The numbers in the 1000ths of a second...well...pffft. The only thing that added this measly 0.029s was the sequential exploding of each floor, as can be seen in this video.

It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the floors in a steel and concrete building to collapse each other at that speed and with that little resistance solely under the influence of gravity. PERIOD. No arguments. No comebacks. No bogus reports. This is a FACT. Gravity-driven collapse of a building takes place in accordance with the principle of minimum resistance and breaks the building into large chunks. Even IF the bending steel and initial collapse of the upper sections from fatigue were true, which it isn't, the collapse would not progress beyond a few floors before the kinetic energy was spent, some of the top section would break apart into LARGE chunks and fall over the side, and the beams and concrete of the floors underneath which were UNDAMAGED BY FIRE OR AIRPLANE COLLISION would hold. The building would NOT be turned into powder and a pile of neatly snapped pieces of steel. The length of all the outer columns was 36 feet, i.e. three floors. The majority of them were snapped into neat, floor-length sections. There were no 11-foot pieces, no 13-foot pieces. Only 12-foot pieces.

Pancake theory, crepe theory, waffle theory, wedding-cake theory...it doesn't matter what kind of dessert they call it, NO ONE'S GOING TO SWALLOW IT.


[edit on 2005/7/8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The building w'r def. brought down by planes....omg


And not mistaken.......the outside walls played a role in the structural design.

That's another reason....not to "compare" WTC buildings with other buildings, very different structural design.

But the question I have is what can we do to "existing" super towers to protect them for any future attacks....
is it possible to make the Buildings "stronger" after they are constructed....

Are there any Licenced Structural Engineers on this Avoe Top Secret.com ?

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
ok ok don't seem we ever gon'a "all" agree ...so an idea....

Why don't we get a fund together...(some web site)....we all donate some coin....and get a Co. to make a "modle" of the WTC's and the Planes.
And run tests see what happens (and film it and offer the .mpg on the net?)

(Bet we could even get students to make it at high school / college levels)

This would def. help with this "issue" no? , plus we would help the students at the same time



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
sorry double post

[edit on 8/7/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Not very similar to WTC 1, 2, 6, & 7


This is what happens when a building collapses from a cause other than controlled demolition.







And this is what they look like below when they are demolished, any questions






[edit on 8/7/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
ok ok great pictures


But....you can not compare "apples" to "oranges".

First off....the pictures show.....no fire...and prob. each "failed" building in the pics above.....are different reasons why they fell over., plus again "totaly" different structural designs in the pictures show'n abv. and the WTC's buildings.

And with regards to building No. 7.....part of the WTC's property....and would def. get effected by the 2 main buildings...pretty sure all the building would have "many" levels underground and all connected so structural at lower levels would be "integrated"....but again would not surprise me if they did bring it down...to ensure the safty of the Fireman(women 2)......If it was me....don't care who's offices they w'r (even the CIA etc.).....NO MORE Fireman to die today...blow up that dam building now....or I call Bush and ask him to send a guided missle into it
.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
But....you can not compare "apples" to "oranges".


True, but you can compare oranges to tangerines.


First off....the pictures show.....no fire...and prob. each "failed" building in the pics above.....are different reasons why they fell over., plus again "totaly" different structural designs in the pictures show'n abv. and the WTC's buildings.


This building. Similar structure, except weaker than WTC. Massive, extreme temperature fire. No collapse.

external image


And with regards to building No. 7.....part of the WTC's property....and would def. get effected by the 2 main buildings...pretty sure all the building would have "many" levels underground and all connected so structural at lower levels would be "integrated"


No underground connections. And WTC7 was the furthest from the towers of ALL the buildings in the complex. None of the other buildings collapsed and they sustained heavy damage.



This is WTC6. Half the building is gone. It did not collapse.




....but again would not surprise me if they did bring it down...to ensure the safty of the Fireman(women 2)......If it was me....don't care who's offices they w'r (even the CIA etc.).....NO MORE Fireman to die today...blow up that dam building now


1. Few, if any, firefighters died from fire that day, and there were no firefighters in WTC7. Are you suggesting that from now on, firefighting methods be changed to simply demolishing buildings that are on fire to save injuring firemen?

2. Demolition of WTC7 implies prior knowledge of the events of 9-11 and thus criminal involvement. Demolitions are not set up in a couple of hours. And it's kind of hard to set them up when a building is on fire.


....or I call Bush and ask him to send a guided missle into it
.


They already did that with Flight 93.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I skimmed through the thread and someone was still question whether building 7 was pulled --- LARRY SILVERSTEIN WENT ON PBS AND SAID THEY PULLED THE BUILDING, HE SAID IT HIMSELF.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
This building. Similar structure, except weaker than WTC. Massive, extreme temperature fire. No collapse.

external image


How can you say that? Seriously, I'm just curious how this building's structure is similar to the WTC towers. I see absolutely no evidence of any external load bearing walls like the WTC, I see a standard steel/concrete frame building. I'd also like to know how it's "weaker" than the WTC towers. (Based on this photo I'd say it's design is actually much stronger -- it didnt fall down). I'm also curious how it's "massive" when you consider it would fit in about 5% of a single WTC tower.

Seriously, I'm trying to educate myself on the WTC collapses, but I can find nothing valid in your above statements besides "no collapse". It all appears to just be your opinion worded as fact. That doesn't help anything.

[edit: unless you're only referring to WTC 7?]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
I see absolutely no evidence of any external load bearing walls like the WTC, I see a standard steel/concrete frame building.


WTC didn't have external load-bearing walls.

This is a steel-framed building in the picture.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
jeremiah john and wecomeinpeace, excellent posts from both of you in my opinion. What you say makes sense. Im finally starting to be convinced


Gravity-driven collapse of a building takes place in accordance with the principle of minimum resistance and breaks the building into large chunks. Even IF the bending steel and initial collapse of the upper sections from fatigue were true, which it isn't, the collapse would not progress beyond a few floors before the kinetic energy was spent, some of the top section would break apart into LARGE chunks and fall over the side, and the beams and concrete of the floors underneath which were UNDAMAGED BY FIRE OR AIRPLANE COLLISION would hold.


makes total sense to me.


Also i thought NIST did do a reconstruction? i thought saw a media report about it.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Svenglezz, no offense intended to you, but I think we've already got to the point in this thread where "no way guys the planes def did it" doesn't really hold up as an argument anymore. There has been a lot of scientific data posted that totally contradicts the official story and shows that a collapse would not have been possible in the fashion the official story describes. The official story is just not possible short of a miracle, and it's as simple as that. You can go back and browse through the post to pick up the info showing this. It's gone a little beyond just speculating what happened by now.

If you want to look up more specific information regarding some of the claims you've made/suggested (Building 7 could have sustained damage from the two towers, that the fires were hot enough, etc.), here's a site with more specific information for you:

911research.wtc7.net...

I've even covered myself how the fires could not possibly have done it, because, as I have already shown and am waiting for HR to attempt to rebutt (he hasn't been here since I posted it), the fires were never hot enough to sufficiently damage the steel, and the fires actually cooled leading up to the collapses. It's such information that gives the official story away.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
But the question I have is what can we do to "existing" super towers to protect them for any future attacks....
is it possible to make the Buildings "stronger" after they are constructed....


Sure. Just don't let anyone put explosives in them. Works a charm.


oh, and don't let Jeb Bush run the security for the building. I guarantee it'll stand for centuries.

[edit on 2005/7/8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Ok read the information and web site "dedicated" to this topic...but still can't see it......the planes caused the failing of the structure and with the fire....plane and simple.

But so far it's people views and how it fell....but we don't have any "structural" engineers coming forward (and one that is experienced in the field) to say now way the planes alone could cause the failer in the structure.

So I will def. poke around next few weeks ask some that i know see what they say and bring back what they say.....(that fair?)

Y'r always Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Compare the cores of the buildings:
Windsor
external image

WTC


Which one do you think is stronger?


The Windsor tower core was made out of reinforced concrete. The WTC core was built out of steel. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

In order to build a tower as big and as tall as the WTC towers with a reinforced concrete core, the bases of the columns would have had to be so big and massive, that there would not have been any room the the elevators.

BTW, do you notice that in the Windsor tower, the steel portions of the structure has collapsed?

If the core area was made out of steel, then the whole building would have collapsed just like the WTC towers did.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Pretty sure the modern office is decked out with furniture and equipment which doesn't burn easily if at all, let alone intensly.

Think about it, your an office furniture and supply company and your trying to sell furniture, carpeting, desks, tables, lamps, chairs etc etc to a high rise office. Do you think they'll opt for the flammable furniture or the non-flammable variety?? Plastic chairs don't melt steel. Laminated chipboard tables/desks dont melt steel, office carpet doesn't melt steel, photocopiers/fax machines/computers/TVs don't melt steel, Fireproof filing cabnits don't melt steel. In fact non of this stuff would even create an intense fire because they are designed not too for obvious reasons.



You would think so, but that is not really the case.


WTC Cubicle fire test


Also, one a fire hits the flashover point, everything burns.




top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join