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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   


Muaddib: Since when does steel have to melt to lose it's integrity and collapse under tons of weight when there is enough stress in the structure?...


I dunno... MD... I dont pretend to be an expert...
why dont you ask the experts...
you know...the ones from UL... that say the 9-11 story doesn't hold up... it is what they tested for...

and i think the day you have anything to teach a controlled demo expert, is the day we are already doomed...

IMO it was a direct result of the collisions... but I only have my feelings to prove that... It is starting to look like I am wrong...I am still waiting for the real proof one way or the other...




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Well this would explain why those 5 Israeli Mossad agents caught "high-fiving" each other atop a skyscraper across the river from the WTC buildings were arrested for laughing about the whole destruction...

Presumably these 5 Israeli's were part of the "demolition team" but if so, why are the 5 Israeli Mossad agents' files being held by the US Govt as "Highly Classified"??

Oh, the things that make you go...hmmmmmmm.........especially in this world of spy and counter-spy....!!

Well, at least the US is still holding on to the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard until he coughs up the name of his Mossad handler in Tel Aviv...or maybe not....!



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong


Muaddib: Since when does steel have to melt to lose it's integrity and collapse under tons of weight when there is enough stress in the structure?...


I dunno... MD... I dont pretend to be an expert...
why dont you ask the experts...
you know...the ones from UL... that say the 9-11 story doesn't hold up... it is what they tested for...

and i think the day you have anything to teach a controlled demo expert, is the day we are already doomed...

IMO it was a direct result of the collisions... but I only have my feelings to prove that... It is starting to look like I am wrong...I am still waiting for the real proof one way or the other...


read



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
---- elevatedone now remembers why he's been staying away from ATS ----



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Ok, since you claim that science can explain how a building can fall faster when using explosives, can you provide the proof for this, since it is one of the points this professor is trying to put accross?

And could you present scientific proof, none of which this professor is presenting for some reason, that skyscrappers can fall sideways? ... This professor is just speculating without any data to back his claims.


well, in fact the time of the collapse was measured from video footage.

and, as has been explained to you before, explosions blow out all the air. this allows gravity to act in the absence of air pressure. this is, in fact, another 'smoking gun'. collapsing faster than freefall is IMPOSSIBLE without explosives to create the vaccuum effect.

the professor is not speculating without data. in fact, we all have access to a lot of the same evidence(which has been repeatedly 'debunked' LOLOLOL!!!) in the form of video, photographic and witness testimony, NIST reports, FEMA reports and news reports from that day.

once again, i don't think you read the paper, because you are saying things that have been pre-empted in the paper. it's almost like you're working from a script, lol.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong


they weren't at the crash...they only know that in every test, they couldn't get the steel to weaken until 3000 degrees farenheit, or 2000 degrees for a LOT longer than it was exposed to it...




Where do you get these numbers? I swear sometimes people just make this bunk up. Steel melts (turns into a liquid) at 2,642 degrees F or 1450 degrees ºC
Link
But if we believe you steel doesn't "weaken" for another 400 degrees?

Steel gets weak long before it melts just look at any old school blacksmith in action to understand this concept.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'll have to follw suit with elevatedone.

This hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. Not fact!

Everyone here at least needs to reconsider what Muaddib is trying to explain.

The facts in other words. Not a bunch of hogwash!



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Thank you Cognito for the link...
it was quite informative... I can only hope that others read it also...

It doesn't close the book, but it does explain why the UL scientists didn't get the structural failure in thier tests...

I will be the first to admit, that you can't "educated guess" your way thru this scenario...
If the pros have a less that sure judgement, then who are we to guess...

especially when you add in all the questions regarding the "laughing jews and arabs in new york" which is my summation for all the wierd coinky dinks that revolved around the WTC at that time...

It all seems highly suspicious that this was another pearl harbor... but at least the UL report and the temperature question can finally be put to rest (in my book anyway).

For all those that are curious about the info, read the link marked "read"


BTW.. SHADOW... I dont post bunk, and i do list sources... you just have to read them... it was tempered steel... and I don't have a clue what that means... i am merely regurgitating the article I sourced...that you didn't read...

[edit on 14-11-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
.....................
once again, i don't think you read the paper, because you are saying things that have been pre-empted in the paper. it's almost like you're working from a script, lol.


i am not working from any script, I am giving my opinion due to the facts.

Let's go over a few of the facts again from a real expert....


NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.
.............
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. 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.


Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.


Excerpted from.
www.pbs.org...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
1) We will likely never know what happened for sure. It may be wrong to use physics, after the fact and with little evidence, to try to provide proof positive or negative of the causes. We do know for sure that planes impacted with two buildings. The third's demise, wtc7, is curious, however, considering that it sustained no major damage, fires, explosions, impacts, or other...

2) Why do we question or doubt our government and its motives?

For obvious reasons, I would have thought...

Government is always held suspect by the people it governs. This is comme il faut. Governments are, by definition, groups of individuals (with their own agendas) ruling others. Our government deserves and requires the utmost of attention from those it rules (even more than most), especially considering the power that was originally placed (and supposedly still is) in our citizens' hands. We should both be quite critical, and quite supportive of it.

It doesn't bother me all that much that some are claiming that our government may be responsible for the towers (if only by Mossad proxy).

It doesn't bother me that some are blaiming the entire incident on Islamic extremists (they are at least partly to blame. This we know).

It does bother me that so many always find a way to say "let's not question anything", and end up letting someone else govern their lives and thoughts. They spend much of their time demeaning others for questioning the directions our government takes us. This is wrong.

If our government is indeed a monster on any level, it is these individuals that have slowly allowed them to turn into such.

Dictators will always strive for power. Slaves will always allow them to keep it.

It's the true patriots who fight for an ideal, not a country. Our country was once an ideal, and many were proud of it, even other countries, many striving to become the same.

Some try to make it a democrat/republican or liberal/conservative fight. Why? It's a moral issue, which, while less recognized, is a higher personal and public authority than any construct of the people.



The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


How vigilant are you who tell the rest of us not to question?

We had extensive dealings and good relations with the Ottoman Empire. What happened...? People need to understand how we've changed, and that it's our right to have the freedoms we've given up to the lawmakers and the liars.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Well how about someone offer you $100,000 or more to train as a pilot? And who said anything about them being Islamic fundamentalists when the "apparant" ringleader was in a strip bar and drinking, along with four others? Do really think they cared about religion?



I think the answer to your observation can be found here. I won't point out the pertinent material because I believe that it is easily located and the material really needs to be taken as a whole to be appreciated rather than trying to make meaning out of text taken out of context.

www.usdoj.gov...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

BTW.. SHADOW... I dont post bunk, and i do list sources... you just have to read them... it was tempered steel... and I don't have a clue what that means... i am merely regurgitating the article I sourced...that you didn't read...

[edit on 14-11-2005 by LazarusTheLong]


Then why would you post those numbers when heres a qoute from your own link.


Professor Eagar points out that the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit


Thats a far cry from the 3000 degrees you put in your post and very far from the melting point of steel..

your link

Tempering steel is a heat treatment and fast cooling of steel alloys that makes it harder it does not effect the melting point of steel. If you ever seen a black smith heat a sword and then quickly dip it in water that was tempering the steel.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
read


Thomas Eagar has changed his story more times than the justification for the Iraq invasion. Be aware that his "truss zipper theory" is contradicted by the NIST team's column failure theory. So when people are espousing NIST's infallibility and Eager's at the same time, it shows that some are simply convinced of something if it has an official name to it, even when those 'somethings' are contradictory.

Recently Eagar has quietly changed his tune to match NIST, hoping that no one would notice.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Also, I don't see why there's such a discrepancy here...

Just because a building doesn't fall over doesn't mean it has to fall straight down.

Buildings can cascade sideways, or collapse in a seesaw motion. This is because of varried tensions between floors and the struts supporting them on all sides.

I'm not going to bother posting a link for this, considering there's enough links here that others have posted that say the same. If we spent all our time reading links....

And, btw, I may not be qualified to make these statements. I'm a high-energy physicist, not an engineering physicist.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The person who built the towers said his team built them to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts, you need more? Okay, what about the testimonies of firemen hearing bombs go off floor by floor?(just like a controlled dem.) The planes hit the upper floors of the veeeeery high towers and that caused the lower floorsto collapse how? from what? tThey were unaffected. You try to cut down a tree by chopping very high up on the trunk and tell me what happens, k?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
...them being Islamic fundamentalists when the "apparant" ringleader was in a strip bar and drinking, along with four others? Do really think they cared about religion?



I think the answer to your observation can be found here....
www.usdoj.gov...


i didn't find any answers there.
there is nothing there to explain how 'devout muslims' are spending their last night on earth spitting in the face of their god.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
The person who built the towers said his team built them to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts, you need more?


The man that designed the building said he designed it to take a hit of a 707. The 707 was the largest airplane at the time the building was being constructed. He couldnt have designed it with a larger 767 in mind since they were none flying.

He also never thought of a plane hitting it full of fuel. The scenario he invisoned of a 707 hitting the towers was a plane comming in for a landing (ie low on fuel not full) to a NYC airport and getting lost in bad weather and hitting the towers. A terrorist attack with a plane (full of fuel) or plane taking off from a NYC airport (full of fuel) hitting after take off was not a plausible concern for them.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
The person who built the towers said his team built them to withstand multiple jumbo jet impacts, you need more?


Care to post a link where he says this?.... the WTC was supposed to withstand the crash from a smaller plane, and btw both towers did stand the crashes, in case you forgot. It was the combination of the crashes, the burning fires which caused yield level residual stress in different parts of the buildings weakening the redundant structure which caused the buckling effect, which is why the towers fell.



Originally posted by Elijio
Okay, what about the testimonies of firemen hearing bombs go off floor by floor?(just like a controlled dem.)


We have gone through that scenario enough times in the past, please do a search on these forums and you will find more than enough information about it....


Originally posted by Elijio
The planes hit the upper floors of the veeeeery high towers and that caused the lower floorsto collapse how? from what? tThey were unaffected. You try to cut down a tree by chopping very high up on the trunk and tell me what happens, k?


*bangs head against table.....*

In case you haven't noticed skyscrappers are not trees....trees are made of one solid piece, skyscrappers are not made from one piece of material.... skyscrappers are not going to fall like trees....

The total mass of the top floors which began to fall due to the buckling effect produced a momentum with enough force to buckle the rest of the floors. The bottom floors never fell first, the towers fell from where the planes hit downwards.........



[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
The planes hit the upper floors of the veeeeery high towers and that caused the lower floorsto collapse how? from what? tThey were unaffected. You try to cut down a tree by chopping very high up on the trunk and tell me what happens, k?





You mean you've never seen lumberjacks chop trees from the top down?
Well, I never! If you chop a tree near the top, it's coming straight down every time. Those fools should have figured that out instead of yelling timber all the time.

Everyone knows if you fly a plane into a building it's coming straight down. So don't question it, ever. Never mind that a 3rd building fell EXACTLY the same way without a plane impact, just shut up and accept it!!




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka


You mean you've never seen lumberjacks chop trees from the top down?
Well, I never! If you chop a tree near the top, it's coming straight down every time. Those fools should have figured that out instead of yelling timber all the time.


You really have to be as thick as a tree not to realize that skyscrappers are not trees.... no pun intended...


Originally posted by truthseeka
Everyone knows if you fly a plane into a building it's coming straight down. So don't question it, ever. Never mind that a 3rd building fell EXACTLY the same way without a plane impact, just shut up and accept it!!


This has been covered a couple of times also....

Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7, plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....

Please do some research before making up stories....

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join