POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 14-11-2005 @ 03:10 PM by Muaddib
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...


reply posted on 14-11-2005 @ 03:13 PM by 4V4T4R
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.


reply posted on 14-11-2005 @ 03:25 PM by wecomeinpeace
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.


reply posted on 14-11-2005 @ 03:47 PM by Muaddib
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]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^