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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamboni
And Sauron's opinion would be a kin to taking the advice of the local village idiot....

Read the Prof's paper before making judgement.


Hey Sport all I said was a lot of people here always knock what comes from Rense, I have had it happen to me many a time.
Also if you had been around any great length of time you would see where I stand on the 911 attacks.

~~edit to add
Thank you TheShroudOfMemphis you are quite correct




[edit on 16/11/2005 by Sauron]




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I agree that rense may have SOME dubious links...

BUT i have seen a HUGE number of links there that are EASILY corroborated elsewhere if one would take the time to look (don't we all? isnt that what 'question authority' is all about?)

May i suggest cross linking what rense says elsewhere using our own means (as well as ANY other site that posts likewise type information)?

I obviously have done so or i wouldnt have done it. Nothing i ever post from rense stands by itself. I am fully willing to back up anything i post from rense with links from other (and not so 'national enquirish') sites.

Please read what it says, and investigate for yourself what i (or what anyone else) posts, and we will ALL be far better informed (and armed).

Information, not pre-judgement will show us all the truth.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Have you ever seen the demolition of a building in person? First they gut most of the building and weaken structure points. This is major construction work you couldnt do this under peoples noses in the building. I have seem a building a fraction of the size of the Towers go down. I was about a quarter of a mile away and you could make out and feel every explosion in your body BOOM BOOM BOOM so on in a big chain its very distinctive.


Is good that you mention this ShadowXIX, I was in Ground Zero and there were those explosions. It is just like you say it, you don't just hear them, you feel them on your chest. You can ask ANYONE that was there that day and he/she will tell. It was one of the most frightening things of the whole experience, at that moment we were all thinking it was another attack, after the collapse everyone was WTF?!! They even mentioned the explosions on the news that day, the day after you could only hear about it on the radio and eventually nobody talks about it anymore.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by aylk]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Master Wu
Excellent Posts!

Heres some more on that Prof's paper...

www.physics.byu.edu...

Some extremely interesting reads going on in this thread.

Here is an interesting story i found about an unscathed credit card from one of the passengers found at ground zero.

rense.com...

Im curious, what do you guys think would happen if the American people found out that their own government was behind 9-11 and not muslims? Interesting to speculate about....


Well let us not forget that some sort of extremist Islamics, originally trained by the CIA, did have some hand in it. It is dangerous to think there is no Islamic terrorists or terrorism. I personally see evidence that shows the CIA or someone at the top learned of the 'big wedding' 9/11 plot, and did everything to not just make sure it happened, but facilitate it somehow.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
ShadowXIX, when skeptics here at the forum claim that no steel frame tower has ever collapsed due to fire alone, you are quick to point out that it was fire in conjuction with a large plane impacting the side of the towers which caused their collapse.

Fair enough. I don't agree, but fair enough.

However, would you then please explain how Tower 7 collapsed with no plane impact, due to internal fires? I myself was skeptical of the conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks, because I tend to be skeptical by nature, but I have yet to hear a plausable explanation as to why building 7 collapsed, when they weren't hit by planes, there was no jet fuel inside them turning them into raging infernos, and little to no structural damage?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I would like to here your opinions on this animation. What strikes me as odd is the fire coming out of the building during the collapse, and there is almost no fire at the beginning of the animation. Isn't that odd? Given that the steel inside the WTC is supposed to be melting at over 1000 degrees.



[edit on 16-11-2005 by risp]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Actually The phrase “no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire alone” is correct. Since both towers and WTC 7 sustained structural damage prior to the collapse, the collapse of these buildings was not due to fire alone.

As for the Windsor Tower building.



Note that the tenant area of the top portion of the building which was steel framed, did in fact collapse. The core area which was constructed of reinforced concrete beams and columns did not collapse.

Since this is not a “Steel framed building” but rather a composite steel and concrete structure, it can’t even be used to support or refute the above statement.


[edit on 16-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

What strikes me as odd is the fire coming out of the building during the collapse, and there is almost no fire at the beginning of the animation. Isn't that odd?


Well no. You can see the smoke comming out of the building, and when the tower (63x63 square m) collapses at least some meters, it causes pressure that can force flames outside the building. I've nice demonstration about this


i'll post it in ½ hour.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garden Spider
ShadowXIX, when skeptics here at the forum claim that no steel frame tower has ever collapsed due to fire alone, you are quick to point out that it was fire in conjuction with a large plane impacting the side of the towers which caused their collapse.

Fair enough. I don't agree, but fair enough.

However, would you then please explain how Tower 7 collapsed with no plane impact, due to internal fires?


WTC 7 was hit by portions of WTC 1 when that building collapsed. Contrary to popular claims the tower did not collapse into it’s own “footprint.” The collapse of the tower caused considerable damage to the surrounding buildings.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
www.firehouse.com...



Boyle:We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
www.firehouse.com...



Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. . . .

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As for the Windsor Tower building.



Note that the tenant area of the top portion of the building which was steel framed, did in fact collapse. The core area which was constructed of reinforced concrete beams and columns did not collapse.

Since this is not a “Steel framed building” but rather a composite steel and concrete structure, it can’t even be used to support or refute the above statement.


The floors which collapsed were reinforced concrete. They collapsed. Only the outer frame was steel. The building was a similar tube within a tube design with trussed floors between to distribute load. Please provide pictures or evidence of how the "steel-framed" portions of the building collapsed in a pancake fashion to the ground, or other evidence of "global progressive domino zipper collapse" and how the concrete floors were pulverized to dust. Cheers.

[edit on 2005-11-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Now that short demonstration about flame when comes overpressure to the other side.

koti.mbnet.fi... 600 kb

Sorry about crappy quality, it was filmed 2 to 3 years ago and was very packed. :/

So... There is a plastic pipe, and we put there about 2 dl gasoline. It burns inside, but when I blow to the other end, you see big flame without adding gasoline etc.

You see how simple that is?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.

www.concretefireforum.org.uk...

The Windsor Tower was nothing like the WTC buildings.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

What strikes me as odd is the fire coming out of the building during the collapse, and there is almost no fire at the beginning of the animation. Isn't that odd?


Well no. You can see the smoke comming out of the building, and when the tower (63x63 square m) collapses at least some meters, it causes pressure that can force flames outside the building. I've nice demonstration about this


i'll post it in ½ hour.


Wouldn't you expect to see some flames when there is melting steel?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by risp
Wouldn't you expect to see some flames when there is melting steel?


Once again, there is no proof that any steel melted before the building collapsed. In fact, the steel would have lost its strength long before it melted.

On the other hand, the aluminum from the aircraft did melt. At one point, some of it ran out the side of the building when a floor partial collapsed.








posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Here is a question we should all be asking ourselves. Why are all the eyewitnesses being ignored?

If your wife was missing and i went to court saying that i witnessed you murder her (even if i truelly did not), you would be sent to prison (or worse). Why then are the witnesses to multiple explosions in the WTC buildings being ignored?

"I believe what the government says happened is true so those eyewitnesses must be crazy."

REMEMBER!! This same government LIED about its reasons for going to WAR. They LIED to our allied nations as well. In fact, they LIED to the ENTIRE WORLD. What makes you think they didn't LIE about 9-11? They even LIED about leaking Plame's name after her husband started investigating the VERY SAME topic we are now discussing!! And they LIED when they said they did not endorse TORTURE of captured Iraqi's!! (yes these have all been PROVEN to be lies)

Before you start thinking, "well this is different" may i remind you that 9-11 was the CAUSE of all this? They ARE linked. Intrinsicly. Would they lie about one aspect but not the other? Now THAT i would find difficult to believe.

Face it. Our government lies. You know it, and i know it. In fact, i'd say the odds that they are NOT lying would be in the billions to one. Our job now is to find out what they were lying about and why. I agree with the poster above me who says that maybe the government wasn't behind it all, but at the VERY LEAST they were aware of it, and may have even allowed it to happen.

Need i also remind that The Patriot Act was the fastest legislation EVER to have been passed by both houses of congress? Need i remind that it was ALREADY IN EXISTANCE when 9-11 happened and was propossed FULLY WRITTEN only 3 days later? Some congressmen/women didn't even read it because it was so long!! That is one worldbreaking endeavor for speed writing.

And you may disagree with me on this but im going to say it anyway. The president who is behind all of these LIES, actually STOLE an election not just once... Did you know that he had his war cabinet all picked out before he was even fully elected? Not one single 'civil' cabinet seat was picked, but all the war ones were, PRIOR to even being elected.

I point this out for one simple reason. Our current government has a history of LIES upon LIES and underhanded actions upon underhanded actions. Clinton may have smoked pot, but ol Georgie was actually arrested for coc aine!! Now i don't condone any use of drugs (except for health reasons) but i think we can all agree that coc aine will destabilize a mind waaaaay before pot ever would. Worse pot can do is make you lazy. Cocaine makes people kill people, and steal, and lie...

Sorry about the rant, but some of this needed to be said.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Master Wu]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Because there is far more evidence (and witnesses) that indicate that explosives were not used.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Because there is far more evidence (and witnesses) that indicate that explosives were not used.


Such as?

What evidence is there that explosives were not used? Proving a negative, I know, but you said such evidence existed, so let's see it.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.

www.concretefireforum.org.uk...

The Windsor Tower was nothing like the WTC buildings.


1. The lower, steel-reinforced sections of the building were not exposed to intense fire, only the steel sections were.

2. The core would of course remain standing because it is the strongest part of the building, as the core of the WTC towers should also have. If the core of the Windsor Building had been steel, the truss-connected floors would still have fallen, and the core would have still remained standing.

3. The steel-supported floors collapsed in isolated pieces at a time and across the entire 18 hour duration of the raging inferno. They did not go into global pancake collapse.

4. The sections of the building unburnt or not yet destroyed by fire did not collapse into dust down to the ground when upper floors collapsed on them. The falling debris was deflected by the resistance of the structure beneath it, fell in a non-uniform fashion, and slewed off the side of the building as we know is supposed to happen according to basic laws of physics. Only the sections of the building directly exposed to intense fire for extended periods collapsed, and the trusses did not "unzip", "pancake" or flip-flop. Buildings do not collapse in this manner without the aid of explosives.

5. The Windsor inferno made the WTC fires look like a weekend BBQ, reaching temperatures upward of 1000degC and burning unhindered for 18 hours.







[edit on 2005-11-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Hi,

I have heard this theory before. I am having trouble explaining this one.
When I saw the towers fall, they fell from the top down. Usually when there is a timed demolition, you can see a slight settling in the building
under the weight and then crumbles as the entire building down all together. The base of the building crumbles a little ahead of the rest and the top follows milliseconds after that.

In the WTC tower collapses, the video shows no movement of the lower floors as the upper floors come crumbling down. The towers seemed to collapse entirely from the top down. If there were charges in the basement, the video should have shown some movement of the lower sides of the building slightly down just before the top started to falter.
So...I don't buy it.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
WCIP, other than the thin, lightweight concrete of the floor slabs, there was no masonry (i.e. structural concrete) used in the construction of the WTC towers. The core area of the towers was nothing like the core area of the Windsor building.

As I stated above, the Windsor tower was basically constructed with reinforced concrete columns and beams with the exception of the tenant areas of the top floors whicher were supported by a steel frame.

It is not possible to compare the performance of these to structures in a fire. This is truly an apples to oranges situation.

Why do you insist that the situations are comparable? They are not. The two buildings had totally different designs and were built with totally different materials. You simply can not compare the two.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join