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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
Those URLs are as bias as PETA's sites and I don't think disucssing the facts will work. The only people you will ever trust on these issuses are people who argee with you, its like a cult or at least the "me too" crowd.

To deny ignorance is to look at it from both angles and try to find facts that support both sides and not just what you and the "me too's" believe.

Honestly, go look at the way PETA members argue and the evidence they provide.

Drop a brick on another brick that has dust on it and see that the dust goes upward from the holes in the upper brick and it shoots out from the sides.


XL5 i coudn't agree with you anymore...but then again, those of us who actually think and have some commons sense, are considered to "work for the government as spies"......

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Problem is you're not dropping a brick on a brick...

You're are dropping maybe 1/10 of a brick on a brick, makes a big difference, no?


XL5

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Ok, try it with 1/10 of a brick and the dust will still do the same thing.

The dust and smoke have to go somewhere and it will go out the path of least resistance.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
...................
The magnitude of the North tower was 2.3, which corresponds to almost double the amount of seismic energy measured for the South tower at 2.1. Amazingly, the blue ribbon team of experts overlooked this major discrepancy in the seismic data. Given that this is junior high school science, it appears the oversight was intentional, leaving viewers to assume that 2.1 and 2.3 are almost the same. This technique was necessary to maintain the cover story.
...............
The Law of Conservation of Energy requires that the standing Potential Energy and the falling Kinetic Energy must be equal. Since both towers were virtually identical, a seismic energy measurement for the North Tower of 2.7 tons of TNT explosives, almost double that of the South Tower, at 1.4 tons, indicates some additional energy source. This additional energy cannot be explained by the official collapse theory, however, it is consistent with explosives used in controlled demolition.


I saw this before but forgot to address it before posting.

Perhaps you are concentrating too much on the "demolition theory".....

Tell me something. Did you ever witnessed the fall of the towers?
Do you know that one tower was hit lower by the plane than the other? hence the initial collapse of one tower had more falling mass than the other, hence the difference in the seismic reading....

WTC1 was hit between the 94-98 floor, WTC2 was hit between the 78-84 floor..... there was a difference of 14-16 floors when the towers began collapsing.

Oh but of course, it had to have been demolition charges. It is impossible that the addition of several more floors falling in the collapse of one tower could account for the seismic difference.... right?



[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Problem is you're not dropping a brick on a brick...

You're are dropping maybe 1/10 of a brick on a brick, makes a big difference, no?


err, you do know that the 1/10 of a brick you are referring to weights humm, lets see, about 395 tons for the aircraft, plus about 7 x 10 to the 10 J of potential energy for the top of wtc1. Small 1/10 of a brick huh?...



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   
In comparason to what was left of the building bellow the impact point yes.
Infact I think I was being very generous with 1/10...

How much weight was left of the aircraft do you think? Most of it probably didn't even make it all the way in the building, and most of the fuel ignited outside the building.
I really don't think the A/C weight had that big of an influence.

Just look at the relative sizes of the A/C, buildiing, and the size diff between the "top cap" and the rest of the building.

A/C light alloys verses building made of steel and concrete??



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
In comparason to what was left of the building bellow the impact point yes.
Infact I think I was being very generous with 1/10...


You were not generous... in fact the difference of the potential energy of all of the 1,360 ft height of wtc1 was 3 x 10 to the 12 J, while the amount of potential energy on the top of wtc1 was about 7 x 10 to the 10 J.

There is a big difference between the two, but saying that the top of one tower was like 1/10 of a brick falling on top of a brick is not really a good analogy.


Originally posted by ANOK
How much weight was left of the aircraft do you think? Most of it probably didn't even make it all the way in the building, and most of the fuel ignited outside the building.
I really don't think the A/C weight had that big of an influence.


actually, most of it made it all the way in the building...did you see any large pieces of the aircraft fall from any of the towers? the planes were not in one piece of course, but most of it's weight remained inside the towers.


Originally posted by ANOK
A/C light alloys verses building made of steel and concrete??


Not really, first of all, you guys keep claiming the buildings were made of steel and concrete, when in fact it was mostly air, and there was not as much concrete in the towers due to their newer design, as in comparison to the concrete that the Empire State building was built with.

The towers also had 21,800 windows each, do you think those would have posed much of a threat to a passanger aircraft crashing into them?


[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
The towers were made of air huh? Well no wonder the fell so easily.


Finally we can put this conspiricy to rest!



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The towers were made of air huh? Well no wonder the fell so easily.


Finally we can put this conspiricy to rest!


you mean "conspiracy" right?....

Let's see if what i said is wrong, shall we?.....


A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
........................
In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.


Excerpted from.
911research.wtc7.net...

Anything else you would like to comment on?.....

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Whatever spelling nazi


From your link...


All buildings and most bridges have what we call redundant design. If one component breaks, the whole thing will not come crashing down.



Some people were concerned the building would fall down. The structural engineers knew it wouldn't, because the whole thing had an egg-crate-like construction



That's essentially how the World Trade Center absorbed an airplane coming into it. It was somewhat like the way a net absorbs a baseball being thrown against it. If you lose a couple of the columns, that's not the end of the world. It will still stand up.



Eagar wants it both ways -- the tower was at once very massive, and mostly air. In fact the towers had a high strength-to-weight ratio (in contrast to masonry buildings).


So what happened? The fires burned the "air" causing the collapse


[edit on 25/11/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Whatever spelling nazi

...................
So what happened? The fires burned the "air" causing the collapse


[edit on 25/11/2005 by ANOK]


Whenever you grow up and after you graduate from kindergarden and all the way to college then perhaps we can have a civil and informed "discussion."


[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
What does the board rules say about personal attacks? Maybe you should read them punk!



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I found an alternative link for the New Jersey video in which you can hear the explosions going off.

You must watch this video.

www.thewebfairy.com...

Right-click the link and save it to your computer. If after you've downloaded it, you can't open the file, try dragging it into an open window in your browser and it should work.


You're seeing what has been kept from the world for four years....BECAUSE THE SOUND WAS TURNED OFF.

NOW YOU KNOW WHY THIS WAS NOT SHOWN LIVE, BUT WAS DELAYED FOR 45 SECONDS WHILE THEY GOT THE EXPLOSIONS MUTED.


[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
thewebfairy.com...

and connect good audio equipment to your box, then turn up the volume and the bass, you will actually FEEL the explosions in your stomach.



.... > Subject: [ghosttroop] NO WORDS NECESSARY
>
> ......hard to keep the tears back.
>
>
www.911blogger.com...
>
> You're seeing what has been kept from the world for
> four years....BECAUSE THE SOUND WAS TURNED OFF.
>
>
>
> NOW YOU KNOW WHY THIS WAS NOT SHOWN LIVE, BUT WAS
> DELAYED FOR 45 SECONDS
> WHILE THEY GOT THE EXPLOSIONS MUTED.
>
> ARMY PSY-OPS OFFICERS HAD BEEN WORKING IN THE CNN
> NEWSROOMS SINCE JULY OF 2000.
>
> IT DROPPED IN 9.5 SECONDS....

***************************
Witness confirming three big explosions: thewebfairy.com...

(Not from 911eyewitness)


Yesterday there were hundreds of hits on Google for the name of the soundfile ( 911eyewitness_wtc1.wmv ), now it's only EIGHT left, so you have to be fast, "they" are in full eradicating mode.....



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   
posted by LaBTop on 25/11/05 at 14:01 Post Number: 1825025 (post id: 1846918)
in this thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by LaBTop
I'm quite sure this will shock you in your shoes :

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

Since you attack mr Forbes and me, ad hominem, and give me the impression that you will have a true change of thoughts on the whole 9/11 subject if the statements of mr Forbes turned out to be right, here you go :



Thursday, November 24, 2005

Interview with Scott Forbes.

Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower of the world trade center, witnessed a power-down of the tower in the weekend before 9/11.

I spoke with Scott Forbes by telephone for around a half hour in late 2004. I also arranged a video interview. However, due to delays by a third person in releasing that video, Scott and I agreed to post a written interview now to fill in some of the details of Scott's experience.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

GW: In 2001, you were working as an information technology specialist for Fiduciary Trust. Were you the main IT person for Fiduciary Trust, or were you an assistant IT person?

SF: I worked within an IT department of around 100 as a senior DBA [database administrator] and team leader.

GW: Fiduciary Trust had floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower at that time. Did you work on a specific floor, or did your duties normally keep you roaming on several floors?

SF: I and my technology colleagues worked on the 97th floor ... in the course of the day we would have meetings or give support on other floors but most our time would have been spent on the 97th floor.

THE WEEKEND OF SEPTEMBER 8TH AND 9TH

GW: You've previously stated that on the weekend of September 8 and 9, 2001, there was a "power down" condition in world trade center Tower 2, the South Tower, and that this power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. Do you know what time the power-down started?

SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

GW: You've previously stated that you were aware of the power down since you worked in the IT department and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. How many other Fiduciary Trust folks were you working with? Can any of them verify your story?

SF: Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information.

GW: You said the reason given by the World Trade Center or Port Authority for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded. Do you know what parts of the building or how extensive the area would have been for upgrading cabling? In other words, would the area being worked on have been near the outer walls of the tower? Near the core? In the middle?

SF: I have no knowledge about this and can't comment ...

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were no security cameras. How do you know that? Could there have been backup generators which powered the security cameras?

SF: Within my company security cameras were monitored and videos retained for reference. They were powered from the usual power supplies so they would ave been out of action like all other electrical appliances.

GW: You also stated that, without power, there were security locks on doors. Are you just referring to outside doors, or also office doors? Were the locks electrical or key? If electrical, were they battery-operated?

SF: I was referring to the secure doors accessing my companies floors (and other companies). I do not believe there were any battery operated doors.

GW: You also stated there were many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. Did you see any of these folks yourself?

SF: Yes. By “engineers” I mean there were workmen on site, in overalls.

GW: Did these folks look "middle eastern"?

SF: No, not particularly, I mean I don't recall registering that the
guys were of one racial group or another.

GW: Did you recognize any of them from previous "work" in the tower?

SF: No.

THE MORNING OF 9/11

GW: You were home on the shore of Jersey City on the morning of 9/11, and -- according to what you have said previously -- you were "convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work". Why did you think that?

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on. I became more suspicious several months later when the power down condition was never acknowledged and in some instances was denied by authorities.

THE 9/11 COMMISSION

GW: Finally, you've stated that you gave your information to the 9/11 Commission, but it took no interest. How did you get the info to the Commission (phone, email, letter?)

SF: I contacted the commission through their website and by mail. But I was never acknowledged nor contacted.

GW: Did the Commission ever follow up with you?

SF: No

GW: Anything else you wish to tell us?

SF: I have another piece of interesting information ... after 9/11 my company, along with others, was in disaster recovery mode at a location in New Jersey. At that site were literally hundreds and hundreds of eye witnesses to the events of 9/11. As a British National I was contacted by Scotland Yard in London to interview me on the events ... but I've often wondered why US authorities, like the New York police or FBI, did not interview all those witnesses available altogether in New Jersey. It seems like incompetence to me at best ... negligence at worst.

Postscript: Scott did not wish to speak with me concerning reports of explosions above the impact zone in the tower, perhaps because of privacy concerns for the family members of those who died in the tower. Scott told me that he was recently interviewed for a Dutch TV Documentary. So stay tuned: 2 videos of Scott should be coming out soon. .

posted by George Washington at 7:37 AM
2 Comments:

Spooked said...

Cool interview. Thanks.

I was never sure what to make of this guy's story. But he seems real enough, and assuming it's true, it's blockbuster information.
11:37 AM .....


PS: the soundlink I posted seems to have been hacked already, when I googled for it with the name of the file I mentioned before YESTERDAY, I got hundreds of hits at Google, this morning I only got EIGHT.
"They" are really afraid of this soundfile, and the rest, I've never seen google info so fast disappearing, some guys must be doing some serious overtime.
But you can order a DVD on that site, www.911eyewitness.com...
And that DVD is already massively sent out all over the US and abroad, they can't stop the avalange anymore.

It's all coming back at them with increasing speed.

Furthermore, I think you really did not read with an open mind what I posted about seismic events, or did not understand it, or did not want to see the truth in its ugly eyes.
I do believe you are very scared to have to start to accept that your country is not the kind, you are fed your whole live, to believe in.

I can start a very long debate with you about physics, seismic events and the way it all influenced your perception of 9/11.

Do you really want to go such a distracting road now, after having read the above ?
It will cost you and me an awfull lot of our time, and I assure you that 98% of our readers will not understand one jota of it, since they are grown up with the "Popular Mechanics" attitude, that is, know as little as necessairy about a subject, but enough so you can fill a few "monday morning coffee pause minutes" with your "knowledge. The televized american way of life...



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The pier is 1.8 miles away which would give an 8.5 second delay before the sound from the WTC complex reached it. The explosion peaks are short and high-energy. Watch the sound wave recording, listen, compare the lower-energy constant sound of the collapse, count the time from when you hear the first massive explosion to when the collapse starts (hint: it's more than 8.5 - 9 seconds), and work out what is and isn't from the collapse.

Oh, and don't miss the plume of white smoke which starts up at the base of the tower AFTER the explosion and BEFORE the collapse.

[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The intensity of the sound in that video made me a little wary (my subwoofer was vibrating and dancing around the room). I started looking around for other videos and after some hard searching I found what I think is the original.

It appears the video is a NOT a fake, however the sound has been played with to enhance the volume of the pulses. Here is the original:

terrorize.dk...

Watch that one and you will hear the same bursts, BUT, not as loud as they are in the first video I linked to earlier.

The distance from the WTC site to the camera is cited as 1.8 miles. That makes for an 8.5 second delay before the sound would reach the camera. The first, loud pulse occurs at the 28 second mark in the video, which means the event which created the pulse at the WTC site occurred at the 19.5 second mark. The collapse begins at the 36 second mark, 16.5 seconds after the first large pulse. If you turn up the volume, you can hear all of the pulses before the collapse and the ensuing constant signal of the collapse and debris striking the ground. The earlier pulses are not associated with the collapse, they are separate events.

It seems that the pulses ARE genuine. My guess is that whoever did the post-production on the video did some EQ work to increase the intensity of the pulses to make them more obvious, however this does not mean that they are not there - the sound has been enhanced, not added. Whoever did the enhancement may have done it with good intentions, or may have done it as a deliberate disinformation tactic to undermine the credibility of the original.

I also found this video:
terrorize.dk...

This video is taken from the same location, and appears to be the very same camera, but the footage is of the first collapse (WTC2). There are no large pulses audible before the collapse, however the sound of the collapse itself and the debris striking the ground can be heard, with the 8.5 second delay.

[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
wrong thread.

Get's a little confusing with the same things posted on two threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 25-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 25-11-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
wrong thread.

Get's a little confusing with the same things posted on two threads.


Yeah, sorry, I posted that video in three places in my rush to get it noticed, then had to go back and post the clarification in the same three places.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
terrorize.dk...

Turn your base up on the loudest system you have, at 27 seconds that is one hell of a blast.

Good find


WCIP, how are you sure that sound isn't faked?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join