Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 - The official story contradicts the laws of physics and the most basic knowledge of the behavi

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Another person claiming that "the official story contradicts the laws of physics and the most basic knowledge of the behavior of steel structures, and matter itself."

"1. Fires have never destroyed steel buildings.

2. The collapses were not investigated.

3. The physical evidence was destroyed.

4. The official explanations are ludicrous.

5. The evidence indicates demolition.

6. Demolition is provable."

911research.wtc7.net...




This link provides 22 reasons that the 9/11 was not an intelligence failure.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...




posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I have heard so muc of this lately. Who knows what the truth really is.



posted on Sep, 20 2003 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Its at least incredibly obvious that the WTC building 7 didn't fall for a logical reason. The WTC towers fell so quickly that they too appear to have been set up to fall. With the large amount of evidence pointing to extreme foreknowledge of the events of 9/11/01 by the government it takes just a short leap from there to assume they also blew them up.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 04:35 AM
link   
That sit has a #load of information about the events, its a really good investigation site. Looking at the video of WTC7 building falling is incredible. It falls straight downwards like a controlled demolition, its really odd.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 04:35 AM
link   
That sit has a #load of information about the events, its a really good investigation site. Looking at the video of WTC7 building falling is incredible. It falls straight downwards like a controlled demolition, its really odd.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Thanks for the links, peace.

Though it still remains in the realm of speculation, the WTC demolition, though not 100% verifiable, is VERY plausible, and I tend to lean towards that theory than the jet fuel melting stuff. I posted before on the subject. I hads an aunt who worked in that area, and on leaving the scene and running, she said she heard a lound thundering boom, turned around for a second, glimpsed the last piece of the high rise, and then it began to decend below the building levels. She herself has no opinion on the matter, but was telling her story when my mom asked about it. It was very interesting, Ive witness controlled demolitions before, and a similar sequence:

The charges are set off, lound thundering boom. The building, looking untouched, stands for a fgew seconds. Then suddenly, it starts falling like water on top of itself.

Another interesting point is the lack of thoruough investigation that was done. I know in the past, invetigations on what caused many accidents went on for years, the original plane parts being stored, and studied by engineers until a proper conclusion is reached. Thw WTC wreckage was hurridly carted off and shipped for scrap, or buried in landfills within a few months. Its also interesting that the NYC fire fighters were very angry with Guilianni because they werent allowed a full investigation into what caused the towers to collapse on thier brothers.

We will never know for certain, but demolition seems the most likely. But we need not worry, 9/11 is chock full of damning evidence that is completely provable and requires little research, if any.

Given the other crap that went on that day.....controlled demolition is not ridiculous or absurd. It is something worth looking at.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 03:57 PM
link   
When you talk about this.. have you for once stopped to think that the WTC was hit by object that weights between 60000-114000kg:s depenting how it is loaded.

And this object moved 300-800km/h.. (max being 500mp/h)

And the 'object' (missile, plane..) exploded as it (they) were carrying much fuel.



Structures hardly ever collapse 'at first impact'.

But usually 'shortly after' as the structure 'wears itself out'.. ('fatique') as the 'weakened' structure cant stand the weight.. but it takes a short while before it collapses. (due 'fatique'.)



I hope that you can understand what im saying..

(my point simple as possible: metal 'cracks' after certain timelimit if 'somekind of force or energy' is 'affecting' it.)




posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Agreed.
There was a program about it, basically the fire-proofing they used in the middle of the WTC were fire proof but VERY flimsy (e.g. you could BASICALLY punch through it).. because of this about 7 people escaped from an elavator that was stuck, they dug through the fire proofing...
The way it fell upon itself was the cumulative effect, remember, the weight was not starting from 0, but it had the weight of the floors above the impact point as well collapsing downwards.

Motive?
Why would the goverment WANT to destroy two buildings of such importance?
Dont say to start a war on terrorism, Bin Laden had hardly been heard of to a serious extent before these had happened.
This has crippled the US economy (in my opinion, please feel free to criticize/back up), and frankly, we all saw the planes fly into it.
They had, what, an hour, to 'set up charges' as you claim.. What would have been the point?
Kill 3500 people?

Please, dont give a pathetic conspiracy theory.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Fulcrum,

The plane, tho relatively large, was tiny compared to the WTC. It wasnt like a meteor hitting the WTC.

Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel. I know this because I used to work with jet fuel (Our big generators for the patriot radar ran on Turbine engines, like jets do, tho a different type of engine, its a similar fuel).

Jet Fuel si VERY volatile. Very volatile fuels burn at lower temps that thicker fuels. Diesel burns very hot. Jet fuel, by comparison, doesnt burn nearly as hot. Ive seen enough smaller scale jet fuel fires to know that jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt or bend that much steel.

Ill give u an example. One of our fuel handlers turned the pumps too high on his tanker, and fuel shot all over the place, all over the front truck of the trailer. The feul, because it was so hot, started catching fire. there was fuel all over the front of the truck. The truck was older, the steel not nearly the strength that the WTC was. The jet fuel burned for about15-20 minutes before we finally got it out. It did not melt the truck, it damaged some wiring, burnt the paint off, ect. But the structural damage to the steel was not there. and proportionately, there was far more jet fuel covering the front of the truck that there was in the wtc.

Thus, there wasnt sufficent fuel and time, heat, ect to seriously weaken the steel to that magnitude.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Browha, this IS a CONSPIRACY site. Thus, the only thing youll get is conspiracy theories. if you dont want a "stupid conspiracy theory" then this is not the place for you.

You make the dangerous assumption that the govornment actually cares about those 3500 people. Do you really think they would shirk from killing 3500 people as part of a campaign to further thier own agendas? Then you wallow in dangerous illusions.

Destroying two buildings leaves an emotional scar on the public. Two landmarks forever vanished. It burns a nasty hole deep within the skulls of people. They can never forget now, because two landmarks forever destroyed.

Economics? the US economy still going. Do you think thhe economic slowdown hurts them in anyway? # no! they knew how to profit from the disatser (see massive stock selling short of United and American airlines before the attacks). The economy doesnt hurt them, because they profit from other ways. Investing thier money in defense tech, oil, ect, lines thier nests. they dont care if everyone else loses out. They dont care about job losses. they are still employed, still making alot of money, and better yet,t ehy have the public believing that they need more govornment to keep them selves safe.

The reasons and logic is pretty obvious. The concerns or welfare of the masses have never been a concern for them. Do you really think George Bush gave a # about any of those workers in the WTC?



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 06:34 PM
link   
There are a lot of new members around sites like this at the moment, practising the art of well rehearsed denial.

Before too long, you will see cut and paste jobs of exactly the same content across a number of the so-called 'conspiracy sites' calling with an empassioned plea for people to stop believing anything other than that 9/11 was a tragedy, and that the Bush government has done its best to mop it up.

But for anyone that cares, that isn't going to happen for this administration, because they will not be allowed to stonewall any more, and no stone will be left unturned in delivering the truth to aid victims, victims' families, and the prevention of such criminality (both the American and foreign contributions to it) ever again.

Stick to your guns, Peace and Skadi, and be sure to deal in facts not presumptions.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by browha
Motive?
Why would the goverment WANT to destroy two buildings of such importance?
Dont say to start a war on terrorism, Bin Laden had hardly been heard of to a serious extent before these had happened.
This has crippled the US economy (in my opinion, please feel free to criticize/back up), and frankly, we all saw the planes fly into it.
They had, what, an hour, to 'set up charges' as you claim.. What would have been the point?
Kill 3500 people?

Please, dont give a pathetic conspiracy theory.


What else are we supposed to provide in light of the circumstancial evidence? There are no smoking guns in this case, as most if not all hard evidence besides some witnesses have been erased, but from what is there we can gather enough clues to attempt to figure it out.

Why would our own government want to blow up thousands of civilians and large buildings? The only possible conclusions are the ones already drawn.

If you don't want a conspiracy theory then I will simply say that they are crazy and evil. Which they indeed are. No conspiracy is necessary in this sort of summary.

What do you want from us anyway? A frickin trial with doctors and researchers backing us up? That won't happen in cases like this because its not allowed to take place.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Look people, please do all of us a favor and please read and post to current topics on this. I hate to repost the same info over and over every time someone hears this crap for the first time and thinks they have athe scoop. I've watched the building fall a million times and never seen anything that would make me think there was abny controlled demolition. I have a degree in construction and have spent the last 5 years doing materials testing. The impact removed a major part of the loadbearing structure causing more weight to be applied to the remaining. The COMBINED intense heat from the buring fuel (ie jet fuel and combustionable material present plus the artificailly cooled and dried air throughout via climate control systems) and the increased pressure was more than enough to change weaken the rest of the LOADBEARING structure on a MOLECULAR level far past its capacity.

Nothing else was need for failure after gravity truned the upper floors into giant piledrivers which cause a massive breakdown and PULVERIZATION of building materials. I know you can't evinsion this past the reference to stacking up cracker boxes and toppling them in the kitchen floor but the mass of building material is quite different than that. The amazing thing, (as I have posted on so many other post like this) isn't that they failed bu that they withstood the weight distribution for so long. No, a fire itself probably could not have done them in but remove part of the structure that distributes the rest of the load to the ground (and rock) and include intense heat too ( or not as it probably would have failed without the heat) and you begin to see things happen that cannot be explained in layman's terms. Please can we move on?



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Astrocreep,

New people on here just joining.

Not everyone has the privilage of having high speed internet. Browing through prior threads would take days.

This issue is hardly settled. The point is not simply the heat. It was the manner in which the WTC fell.

The outside supports werent all brone, only some of them were damaged. Thus, the wtc had the outside supports holding it up, its collapse would have been alot different.

Would fire fighters, seeing this, seeing how the building was struck, run into the building, knwoing it was gonna collapse, to rescue people that would die anyway? Heros they may be, but suicidal they are not.

In many other emergencies, they do not put themselves inside building that they know are unstable and will fall, they instead use other rescue techniques. Given they are experts in building integrity, I would ask the fire fighters, when they saw what had happened, and given the situation, would they have sent a large number of thier forces with the cops into a building they felt was gonna collapse at any minute?

Think about it.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:33 PM
link   
astrocreep

Check your jet fuel combustibility temperature assumptions until you are sure that you are happy the building was designed to spec.

Nothing I have ever read, official or otherwise, tells me that jet fuel combined with office materials in the WTC would have created the intense heat effects that you mention. I notice you tried to cover that off in your second para. Skadi has a good angle on that.

WTC7 is another story altogether.

I don't mind stuff being posted up for re-evaluation if there is new material presented. Within a few weeks there will be a research team looking at things with a far more critical eye, on some of the most objectively solvable and least covered unanswered questions of 9/11.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I have more faith in the explanations given for the actual towers falling, astrocreep. After all, giant planes hit them. I have a far harder time understanding why building 7 fell in the manner in which it did. To me, it seems very improbable (note that I didn't say impossible).



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Links with respect to twin towers the first on is from the agency which built it...

www.greatbuildings.com...

www.architectureweek.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
astrocreep

Check your jet fuel combustibility temperature assumptions until you are sure that you are happy the building was designed to spec.

Nothing I have ever read, official or otherwise, tells me that jet fuel combined with office materials in the WTC would have created the intense heat effects that you mention. I notice you tried to cover that off in your second para. Skadi has a good angle on that.

WTC7 is another story altogether.

I don't mind stuff being posted up for re-evaluation if there is new material presented. Within a few weeks there will be a research team looking at things with a far more critical eye, on some of the most objectively solvable and least covered unanswered questions of 9/11.





Actually i did send in U2U to head up a reserach team on this very thing but I guess someone has beat me to it.

Look, I'm not arguing that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel. Its doesn't have too. The planes took out major supports of the hollow tube supporting structure. Once that happned, the WTC began trying to redistribute all that weight to the remaning members which were also bearing their normal load (compressive stress) plus the shear stress and which was caused by the immediate redistribution. Shear stress is much less than compressive stress on most if not all building materials. All I can say is that having an educational and 10+ years of experience in construction and materials, I see things differently than someone who doens't understand these properties. Its very easy to stand back and say, well that thing should have fallen sideways over...kinda like if I kicked over a cracker box but it doesn't work that way. We're talking thousands of tons (thats mass acted upon by gravity) interconnected smaller pieces failing simultaniously or almost simultaniously. Nothing falls sideways over thats not a solid piece structure. Even a large ship will break-up while sinking. (Remember Titanic and the sounds reported as her members succombed under the stress they weren't meant to bare?) Once these materials in the WTC reached their resonate frequency they liquified (not in layman's temrs as liquid but in vibration terms) and thus were pulled directly toward the ground. Nothing that large topples over and no one has any footage or has ever seen anything topple..not even a radio tower which spirals straight down when it falls (Seen one of those..it was freaky)

I guess what I'm saying is, its much more a complicated explaination than I can dole out every other day. For crying out loud, I was in school 4 years just to leanr the basics and have since had experience to supplement it (although the last five years, its mostly been soil and rock properties). But I did have plenty of time as a const inspector on steel bridges and concrete bridges before this.



posted on Sep, 21 2003 @ 10:21 PM
link   
astro

I followed the engineering principles about as well the second time around as the first time you presented them (which is partially), sincere thanks for trying!

Re 9/11 ATS Research outfit:

1. I haven't submitted a U2U to William or dragonrider (for reasons of my U2U inbox and outbox), but I made my interest known some time ago on the Boards.

2. I see the contribution as being the management of some specific unanswered questions to which viable answers can actually be presented, because of known events and matters of public record over conjectures.

3. The first specific one that was discussed was the high level of put option sales in the week prior to 9/11 through Chicago (similar trends overseas). (Only recently there has been a half-hearted denouncement of these views by a Bush second-string operative).

4. I see the projects as being a revolving series, 4 weeks each in length, with team members added or standing down according to their expertise and interest.

5. I also see the team as being self-managing, there doesn't need to be a fixed leader, but leadership will emerge for key issues from time to time.

6. The ATS members that have already expressed interest are:

* ktprktpr
* Peace
* Djarums
* you
* me.

I don't have any sense of urgency with it, and I thought by promoting the concept quietly like this around the Board, we would get a superb team together, and start when the time is right - early October in all probability. What do you think?



posted on Sep, 22 2003 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Every time I read these arguments, this is what goes through my head:







new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join