It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:25 PM
here is a very important article from the new york times, march 2nd, 2002(322, for all you skull and bones fans)

the official theory constantly morphs to fit new evidence or arguments.

and, here's a real structural engineer saying, "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"

- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down"'live" on discovery

fema's structural engineer.....

Corley played a key role in authoring similar technical reports about the Pentagon, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and the Branch Davidian compound disaster in Waco, Tex (from..ignoring 911)


04/30/02 The designers of the World Trade Center did not sacrifice safety to save money and should not be blamed for the loss of more than 2,800 lives in the collapse of the 110-story twin towers. "It's my opinion that they did not skimp at all," said the engineer, W. Gene Corley who heads the FEMA/ASCE team. (from the chicago tribune)

this structural engineer from the pentagon assessment team is caught lying about more than one thing ...big fat dirty liar

this comes from new civil engineer magazine...(i have to paste it all, because you need to be a member to get to the archives)

WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation

World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.

Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.

The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings (NCE 22 September 2005).

NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.

University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost,” he said.

University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.”

NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations.

But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated.

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.

“The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.”

here's a pbs video showing the construction of the towers. "the center of the world"
i'm watching it now. popcorn, anyone?

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 05:15 PM
here is a story from a photographer who accidently ended up in a funny fly on the wall kind of place. VERY interesting stuff (of course, he just made it up, right smith, dib, roark?)

9-11: secret RESEARCH TEAM disbanded in 1988 seeking ways to cheaply remove WTCs

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 05:29 PM
Howard, thank you, I was looking for a long time already for this story, I read it a long time ago, and one question kept nagging me: how could for example an upwards aimed heavy radiation device have been used when 16 people survived in that stairwell, if it was inside the core? And they would also have reported it, when they would have felt bolts and welds breaking vibrations from another example of a possible unknown vibrational device.
So, still only some sort of thermite as the most possible silent and nearly noiseless device.

But I'm still not sure where exactly that B-stairwell in the North Tower was situated, inside the core collumn packet, then all the above is appropriate, or just outside the core or even at the corner of the floors, which leaves room for doubt and still some unknown devices could have been used.

I was searching with the name "Kim", and now it turned out to be "Lim". Because I remembered in the story a PA officer with a very common Korean or Chinese name.
This is a very important story, and I have read it that time when I had not yet discovered ATS, somewhere in an official report, I still have to keep looking for that one too.

There was a fairly good photo of that still standing stairwell, and I saw it somewhere in one of the threads here.

Then, as he reached the 22nd floor, the building shook, stairs started to heave. It sounded to Buzzelli like heavy objects were being dropped right above his head. The sound got louder, closer. He dove into a corner. “I felt the walls next to me crack and buckle on top of me,” he says. Suddenly, he seemed to be in free fall, and the walls seemed to separate and move away from him.
Maybe two hours later, he regained consciousness on a slab of concrete 180 feet below the 22nd floor. (He may be the source of the rumor that someone surfed the collapse and lived.) He was atop a hill of rubble in the midst of an endless field of rubble, smoke, and fire, sitting as if in an armchair, his feet dangling over the edge. His bag was gone. He felt numb. The air was thick with smoke and dust. He heard explosions ... For a few minutes, a raging fire drove rescuers away. ....

That free fall could be important, but as long as we don't know if he fell straight down, or fell in an arc, we can't conclude that a fairly big piece of the core collumns was melted out with thermite and displaced. The collumns could have simply been broken by the forces exempted on them, and fallen apart. Still, a 180 feet free fall drop from the 22nd floor is something extraordinairy, especially since he did not end up on a piece of stairwell, but on a slab of concrete.
The fires were still burning after collapse, so the collapse did not put them all out.

“That’s not in the culture of the Fire Department,” Jonas would say. “If somebody needs help, we got to give it a shot. It wasn’t a difficult decision.”
“We got to bring her with us,” he told his company.

I said it before, and repeat it again, that's why I adore these firemen, all of them, this was and still is the simple rule they live with!
Hats off for these guys and salute them!
And that's why I keep digging, untill the last stone is overturned, because I would be ashamed for the rest of my life, if brave recuers like these firefighters, PA officers, WTC-security personnel, Ambulance personnel and policemen would have died for filthy GREED in a staged attack, instead of in a real attack, and we would lay down the keyboard sometime in the digging process and give up when there's still so much to ask and proof!

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

Especially this text doesn't fit my believe of the cause of that "wind" :
"The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell" and especially this remark "even before the noise".
Sound travels with a speed of about 333 meter per second, the sound would have come first, then the wind, if it was a pancaking pressure wave !!!
When it really was pancaking, the "wind" would also have blown UP, not down. Because there were anti smoke and fire doors in the stairwells on several floors. And entrance doors which would have been blown shut.
And even when they wouldn't have been there, the "wind" would still escape in a much greater part upwards through huge openings created by the already broken and fallen apart pieces of the building, and blown away drywall plates covering the sides of the stairs, and not through the relatively much smaller still intact pipes of a stairwell, where the air also would be compressed.
Simple gas laws.
This was in fact my strongest indication then, when I first read that story, that the "wind" was in fact the explosive high velocity air-pressure fronts of timed demolition charges, going off above them, coming closer and closer, and exhibiting pressure to both directions ofcourse, upwards the explosion points, but also downwards. And those immense pressure fronts building up stronger and stronger after each explosion, would be much more likely blowing people off their feet and literally blow them around in a SPIRALLING DOWN stairway.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 05:40 PM
I embrace you ! That was exactly the article from that photographer who accidently witnessed a lot of jumbomumbo about demolishing the WTC Towers, which I asked for in another thread with the same name, or this thread.
You found it ! Very eyeopening article, to say the least.

Anyone knows already where exactly stairwell B in the North Tower was situated ?

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 05:58 PM
i want to provide something interesting to listen to.
The guy has weaknesses, his agenda to sell books and his 'previous' on conspiracy.
However it is a personal angle and opinions i havent seen/heard before

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:27 PM
is a fascinating character. And an oratorical talent.
Btw, he says he was a MENSA member, so he must have an extraordinary intelligence quotient. He got in trouble with MENSA, because he used the MENSA name in one of his books title. Hehhe, I know these guys, and yes, they have extremely long toes.

Here is his website :
And this is his books page :

He says at the end of the first hour, that he has a picture of thermite burning down in the Tower basement. And that he was surprised, because he first thought it was magnesium or phosphor burning, but both of these give of lots of gasses, and this stuff didn't gas, it only burned with a bright white light, and was immensely hot.

This is the link to the second hour with Greg Szymanski :

[edit on 1/12/05 by LaBTop]

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:32 PM

I've postd two nice posts for you by now, regarding the most basic physics problems that the towers have defied, and I'm kind of disappointed that you haven't respond to either of them, but just respond to certain posts of mine rather mockingly.

Look at the last two posts on this page:

Those were addressed to you.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
But I thought there were 'massive explosions' in the basements? If this is accurate and they were to destroy the support columns, then how come they obviously didn't? So now these explosions weren't in the basement anymore but over 22 floors up? please...

I love the sarcasm. I think I'll give it a try. The basement explosions were before the collapses, and I don't know of any taking place during them. Only white smoke pouring out of the lobby. White smoke, I guess from the jet impacts and intense fires in the higher floors, right? Or from a lot of WTC employees smoking in the lobby from all the stress maybe.

The buildings plainly did not withstand jet impacts, the elusive clue being given away by their stark absence from the New York Skyline.

Why didn't the buildings fall when they were first struck, AgentSmith?

If the jets could have brought the towers down alone, they would have. They didn't. I don' t know how time functions on planet Smith, but on Earth, a good bit of time passed between either buildings' impact and collapse (WTC2: about 56 minutes. WTC1: about 102.). Or maybe physics is just extremely delayed where you come from. Takes a while to kick in maybe. But these events happened in NY, USA, so it makes little difference.

The aircraft impacts consisted of the impacts themselves and the fires that followed. As the article state not only were the calculations (if done) based on a lesser aircraft, but also one which was travelling much slower and did not take into account the fires afterwards.

Ok, maybe this is our problem here.

I'm not talking about those calculations. I couldn't care less about the calculations.

The fact is that those buildings had an average of 75% redundancy for each floor (perimeter redundancy and core redundancy averaged together). This is gathered from NIST figures, and in the posts I addressed at the beginning of this post, I address this in more detail and provide a footnote where the exact calculations of this figure are done.

Neither the planes impacts themselves, nor the fires, should have caused anywhere near 75% of the columns to fail. We know much less than that was damaged by the aircraft impacts. That was somewhere around 11%/13% for the perimeter columns, averaged with whatever the 2 or 3 out of 40-some core column damage percentage would be. If you've taken any elementary school math classes you'd be able to figure those numbers wouldn't add up to 75.

The fires are a different matter. If you have any evidence at all that the fires were hot enough to heat steel to even 600 degrees Celsius, when it would've started glowing a nice red, please post such evidence. I don't mean evidence that the fires ever reached 600 degrees. They did. Aluminum was melted and ran down the towers in one place for a brief amount of time. I'm talking about steel being heated to 600 degrees. Further, some 60% of the columns on any given floor would have to be heated probably beyond 600 degrees, but just post evidence of 600 and I'll shut up.

Science is based on evidence, after all. If you don't have anything to suggest the fires were not hot enough to cause all that steel to fail on any given floor, then I would submit to common sense (not "this can't be a conspiracy, silly, because most people don't believe you" common sense, mind you, but scientific "which actually makes more sense?" common sense) and fess up to the fact that there is no evidence of severe fire damage. Even NIST fails to find any evidence, resorting to showing some buckling and try to exaggerate it while explaining to us that these failures brought the buildings down, core structures and all, despite the great independence and strength of the core structures. But we can't believe the buildings were actually built decently, anyway, can we? That would just blow our minds.

I also do not see how the survivors condradict the theory of a collapse from the top down as claimed, they do however contest the theory of explosives in basements.

Only if you fancy us claiming massive basement explosions during the collapse that went up the core structures so many floors. Thermite doesn't explode, btw. Watch some videos of it if you want an idea.

Didn't you ever play the game where you stack building blocks up and take turns poking them out until the building gives when you were a kid? It might have helped you understand.

Oh, yeah, perfectly relevant. Especially when the top block would start falling downward on the other blocks, crushing them all to dust. I loved doing that. Did it all the time. And then I'd write up little reports explaining it to people that already believe what I'm saying right now.

Again, the last two posts here were addressed to basic physics issues to your response sympathetic to an official global collapse theory:

I'm curious as to what other than weight destroyed those towers, in your opinion. That's why I'm asking you again to look at those.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:04 PM

Matthys Levy, co-author of a controversial study on why the World Trade Center collapsed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, will present his findings as part of a public regional symposium sponsored by the National Academy of Engineering on April 10 at CU-Boulder.

The symposium, "Tall Buildings: Are They Safe Enough?" will be held from 2 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the new Discovery Learning Center at CU-Boulder's College of Engineering and Applied Science. The Discovery Learning Center is located on the southwest corner of Colorado Avenue and Regent Drive.

Levy, a principal in the civil engineering consulting firm Weidlinger Associates, is scheduled to present "Anatomy of a Disaster: The World Trade Center Investigation" at 4 p.m. His half-hour talk will include a presentation of the computer simulation Weidlinger Associates developed to depict the sequence of failures leading to the collapse of both towers.

The firm's analysis found no structural flaw in the building's design but concluded that fire weakened the vertical steel support columns so that they were unable to hold the weight of the floors above. Weidlinger's findings contradict the results of the initial federal investigation performed by the Federal Emergency Management Administration, which concluded that unconventional floor supports failed, leading to a progressive collapse of the buildings.

His assessment agrees with the NIST findings.

No demolition charges.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Especially this text doesn't fit my believe of the cause of that "wind" :
"The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell" and especially this remark "even before the noise".

I have posted this before but here it is again.

Stone Phillips: “And when you say, that’s when everything hit. What happened?”
Richie Picciotto: “The noise started again.”
Mike Meldrum: “You heard the rumble. You could feel the rumble.”

Their tower was now disintegrating. Hundreds of thousands of tons of cement, steel, and glass began to melt away. And Ladder 6 was still in the stairwell.

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
Stone Phillips: “A rumbling sound, this gust of wind? And then what happened?”

You will notice that they specifically mention the noise before the wind.
In the NY Post article the part about wind first is not in quotes and appears to have been added for effect.

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

This story is an excellent example of the forces at work during the collapse. According to the squib theory air magically decompresses instantly so no wind could have made it down to the 4th floor.

In reality there was more than enough force behind the collapse to shoot dust out of already broken windows, while also knocking down firemen on the 4th floor.

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:18 PM

HowardRoark wrote:
FWIW< as to the claim that the core was completely destroyed at the base of the building. 16 people survived in stairwell b of the north tower. They were located at around the 5th floor and wound up on three.

1. What does the survival of people in the 5th floor above ground have to do with the melting of the columns 6 storeys underground?

2. Those witness testimonies actually refute the "pancake hypothesis" which depends on each floor collapsing onto itself, with 105 stories worth of debris supposedly crushing down on the floor where they were situated instead of being blown out all over Manhattan. In fact their testimony supports the theory that the buildings were falling out and away, and that the cores survived to a large extent, as is shown by the video evidence. I especially love the story of the guy who fell 180 feet from the 22nd floor, " he seemed to be in free fall, and the walls seemed to separate and move away from him." Why was the building falling out from below him and away from him, instead of crushing down on him? According to the pancake and the column failure theories, his floor should have been intact until the building above pancaked on top of it, crushing him like a bug...squoosh!

Mauddib wrote:
thermite reactions, etc...all of which has been covered in several other threads, and which for some unexplained reason...some of the same people keep bringing these up despite them knowing they have been debunked in other threads...

Perhaps the reason why the same people keep bring thermite up is because the debunkings you mention either went unnoticed, or they simply don't exist. So please provide links with specific post references to these "several other threads" in which thermite reactions have been debunked so we can take a look. While you're at it, you can possibly also debunk this paper:
Then once you have thoroughly debunked the thermite issue, you can then explain for us the actual reason why there were massive pools of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

zappafan1 wrote:
So how can the locals on this forum, or anyone for that matter, even begin to make assertions without proper information?

All we have to go by is the information that the feds decide to mete out. And the funny things is, we've still found innumerable, massive holes in their hypothesis. Imagine what we could do if we had the original blueprints and unhindered access to all the relevant information, unfiltered and unredacted by "national security concerns".

zappafan1 wrote:
"These towers were build to take the impacts of hitting Boeing 707's, comparable to Boeing 767's".

Again.. this guy doesn't have a clue, and did no research:

707 Max. weight= 336,000 lb ...... Fuel Capacity= 11,500 U.S. gal
767 Max. weight= 450.000 lb ...... Fuel Capacity= 23,980 U.S. gal

I'm not sure where you got your figures from since you didn't provide any source URLs for anything in your post, but I checked the horse's mouth, the Boeing website, and their listed specifications differ greatly from yours.

Gross Weight: 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg)
Cruising Speed: 607 mph (977 km/h)
Fuel capacity: more than 23,000 gallons

Gross weight: 395,000 pounds (179,170 kg)
Cruising Speed: 530 mph (851 kph)
Fuel capacity: 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 l)

So as you can see, "this guy" and his statement that the 707 is comparable to the 767 was correct. The difference between the two aircraft is the 707 is only 14.9% lighter, yet has a higher cruising speed. The fuel capacity of both models are the same. Furthermore, the kinetic energy of a 707 jet impacting a stationary object at cruising speed is actually 12% higher than that of a 767.

==Kinetic energy at cruising speed==
707-320B: 0.5 x 152,400 x 271.39^2 = 5,612,322,946.02 Joules
767-200ER: 0.5 x 179,170 x 236.39^2 = 5,006,030,592.68 Joules


But the argument of whether or not the towers could have survived the impact damage of a 767 is quite simply moot, because the simple fact is they did survive, extraordinarily well. The architects and structural engineers of the building were right. NIST's assessment of the behavior of the structures immediately after the plane impacts showed that the buildings deflected no more than they would under moderate winds, and then quickly returned to their original, median states - no bowing, no leaning, no collapsing, nothing. Also the impact on the Pentagon has shown us that when planes - which are largely light-weight aluminum - meet buildings, they tend to shred into confetti. Sure, the Pentagon wall was strengthened, but the WTC towers - walls, floors and cores - were originally stronger than any Pentagon wall by an order of magnitude. 5 billion Joules of kinetic energy slamming into the North wall of the North tower in a direct hit, and the only thing that managed to make it out the other side was flame and confetti, damaging only 1 exterior panel on the south wall on the other side.

So with the towers taking the aircraft impacts like a seasoned boxer takes a punch in the nose, the only thing left to cause a collapse of both towers was the fires. And it is this very aspect which the official agencies cling to, themselves stating quite clearly that the fires, not the impacts, brought the towers down. They know they simply can't sell the collapse from impact damage idea.

Now NIST made all sorts of outrageous computer predictions as to how the fires would have behaved and to what temperatures the steel support components were exposed, however the simple fact is that the simulations do not match with the physical evidence gathered by that same agency. Despite this fact, the agency based its summaries on the computer predictions. This is akin to me using a shoot-em-up Playstation game to investigate a murder, and stating that the victim was shot in the head because my computer game shows that he was, despite the fact that the corpse had no bullet wounds and was holding a half-finished cup of arsenic at the time of discovery. Let's look (once again since everyone seems to continually ignore it) at what NIST's real-wold, real-life, physical tests on the steel in the steel in the fire-affected areas showed:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel - p43

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C. These areas were:

* WTC1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web.

* WTC1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web.

* WTC1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector.

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.
Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequate paint for analysis.

Read through that again, folks. NIST said the towers collapsed not because of damage from the impacts, but because of fires reaching temperatures of 1000+C, but the physical evidence shows that this is A LIE. Furthermore the fires were dying by the time the towers collapsed. In the collapse zones where the steel was supposedly turning to butter, the fires were burnt out, no longer heating the steel. There were people standing in the collapse zones. If you know anything about the properties of steel, it regains its strength as it cools. Heat some steel up in a blast furnace to as hot as you like, allow it to cool and then tell me if you can break it. If the buildings didn't collapse at the peak of the fires, then they were never going to collapse from the fires. The support members had survived the fires easily at their peak, just as the man at Underwriter Laboratories said they should, and then with the steel cooled/cooling, they suddenly all collapsed simultaneously across the entirety of one single floor. The building disappears at near free fall speed, and then whaddyaknow, there are massive pools of molten metal at the bases. What does that tell you?

Furthermore, the mechanical action of "creep" is an achingly slow process. The buildings were designed in accordance with the allowable stress design method, meaning they were resistant to the effects of creep, had higher levels of redundancy, and could still bear reduced loads beyond their plastic deformation yield point. Regardless, in light of the evidence, the "creep" issue is moot since the fires simply did not heat the steel to anywhere near the temperatures required, nor did the impact damage the support members enough, to make this a factor for consideration. NIST further avoided actually showing the demand-capacity ratio calculations for after the load from damaged columns was redistributed, thus failing to provide the one thing which scientists are always required to: mathematical proof for their hypotheses. Why did they avoid the final, fundamental calculation to prove to the world that their hypothesis is correct and silence the critics? Simple...because the figures simply don't add up.

[edit on 2005-12-2 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:29 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
His assessment agrees with the NIST findings.

No demolition charges.

then you agree with his statement..........

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"

another famous slip of the toungue to go along with rummy's missiles, silverstien's demolition jargon, fema stooge's 'arrived early', bush's .........every time he opens his mouth. 'if' he were a dictator. haha!

i can't wait to watch the whole globe undergo a 'typical (instant magical)runaway collapse'. unless the nwo has already offed me by then(good chance, haha! i'm comin', jesus!).

i wonder what this guy's theory on tower seven would be? "umm, like we planted explosives in the manner of a typical controlled demo, and ummmm, the deisel fuel in the basement just kind of flared up. and then, once the collapse was initiated, ummm the umm, deisel fuel...."

so, what did you guys think of the pbs flick? i saw some steel mesh for reinforcing the concrete on the floors. there's a little extra somethin' somethin'.

i kept hearing from you howard, that there was 'no reinforced concrete', yet there clearly was in the floors, at least. it even said in the fema report, i believe it was, that radio communications were poor because of REINFORCED CONCRETE.

just sayin'.

wow, that was some MASSIVE foundation. people were like insects next to some of that steel.

as a kid i had a lot of opportunities to operate a crane. i even worked on a few apartment buildings. you really get a 'feel' for things like live load vs. dead load, a dynamic centre of gravity, and most of all, an appreciation for HOW FRICKIN' STRONG STEEL IS.

i've seen a few buckled booms. they don't instantly SNAP SIMULTANEOUSLY at the connection points. in fact, it is rare for the bolts and welds to give out before the steel of the boom. and, in fact they don't ever snap(they would tear or shear first).

steel is much more elastic than it is brittle.

and i'm looking at the steel of the towers, and i'm thinking, 'steel wall', and, 'steel core', and '1971 design of the year award', and BIG STEEL, and HUGE STEEL, and MAAAASSSSSSIVE STEEL.

and then, i'm thinking, tiny gnat exploding aluminum tin(no disrespect to the victims) can knocks out a few welds on this MASSIVE STEEL BOX(with reinforced concrete floors).

okay, it was a pretty big hole.

they underdesigned the connections of the floor to steel wall? wouldn't matter, you can't have your pancake theory and eat it, too. all the right arguments are already out there on the better sites like reopen911, etc. to crush concrete takes time and energy and RESISTANCE from below, which is clearly completely absent in the near free fall collapse.

in other words, if the floor truss connections fail quickly, the concrete has no resistance from below, and if the connectors hold long enough to crush four inches of concrete, then the collapse time would be MUCH slower.
and double ditto for INSTANTLY melting massive amounts of steel. there is only ONE WAY to do that.
the total energy sink is the dead givaway. energy over time, and there was WAY TOO much work down in WAY too short a TIME.

just sayin'.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:33 AM

It was a picture perfect day in September. I was watering some plants on my terrace and enjoying the unseasonably warm weather when I heard the sound of a plane flying low. Within seconds I watched in horror as the unthinkable unfolded, right in my backyard!

The shock was overwhelming. My first thoughts was that it was a terrorist attack. This was confirmed by the news reports of Al Qaeda. But one thing the reporters left out was something I witnessed first hand. A very important omission at that!

Seconds before the South Tower crumbled to its doom, I heard/felt a series of explosions. Same with the North Tower. There was no denying it, I could FEEL the vibrations of them like a small earthquake. Yet when I turned on the news none of the other eyewitnesses commented on this.

Indeed, in the days that followed, like many Americans, I remained glued to the news networks to keep myself informed of any developments and confirm what I had witnessed. But despite the numerous eyewitness accounts, there was still no mention of the explosions.

I decided to examine the evidence for myself…

For the Rest of the Story Click here

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:45 AM
Does anyone have the demo version of SAP2000? I'm trying to download it but can't get it to download correctly because their site is down....I've spoken with their customer support. It would be great to get the original zip file so I can unzip it and use it on my computer for the full 30 days. Thanks......or if anyone knows where I can download it other than from

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:20 AM
Nevermind...I finally was able to download it from a proffesor. I'm reading the manuals now.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by billybob
here's a pbs video showing the construction of the towers. "the center of the world"
i'm watching it now. popcorn, anyone?

Here are the direct links for the files of that doco so you can download them to your 'puter.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Does anyone have the demo version of SAP2000? I'm trying to download it but can't get it to download correctly because their site is down....I've spoken with their customer support. It would be great to get the original zip file so I can unzip it and use it on my computer for the full 30 days. Thanks......or if anyone knows where I can download it other than from

Unless one has all of the constructions details, blueprints, etc, all the software in the world won't help. Even the NIST can't get the stuff from the port authority.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:55 PM
Sad but true I'm afraid. Does anyone know a legitimate reason why they won't release the design drawings of a building that doesn't exist and never will again? I'll try to think some up also.

1. Security. A potential terrorist might use the plans to do the same to another building. FALSE, any would be terrorist could just get the plans for the building they want to destroy....and they destroyed the WTC buildings (as far as they say) without any building plans or specs.

I can't really think of anything else.

p.s. Have they released the specifications? Sometimes (if written correctly) the specs can contain more info in them than the drawings themselves.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:04 PM
.... I also got my specs from Boeings site. Different models, obviously.

This entire thing has shown that there are thos who have way too much time on their hands... possibly because they don't have jobs? In some cases, I'm sure.

Anyways, people can speculate all they want, but I tire easily from words like "here's proof" or "factual evidence" where none exosts.
My only hope is that there will be light shed on this in the future.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by billybob
here is a story from a photographer who accidently ended up in a funny fly on the wall kind of place. VERY interesting stuff (of course, he just made it up, right smith, dib, roark?)

9-11: secret RESEARCH TEAM disbanded in 1988 seeking ways to cheaply remove WTCs

Sorry, but anyone with half a brain would realise that the first WTC bomb would not bring down the building; now there's speculation that the first bombing would help Bush???

The very idea that someone... anyone, would blow up the building(s) to prevent financial loss is also whacked. Heck..... that idiot Trump would buy it if he could.

I doubt very much that any company would have taken the job of bringing them down..... even the best.... Controlled Demolition.

I'm done with this thread... way too much time spent on speculation and heresay.

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by zappafan1
This entire thing has shown that there are thos who have way too much time on their hands... possibly because they don't have jobs? In some cases, I'm sure.

If that is directed at me....I assure you I have a job. We are slow now due to the cold weather and also, this (structural analysis) is helping me study for my P.E. license. So, yes I am interested in this thread because not only does this benefit me by studying up on things I have forgotten but it helps out everyone else also because if I could prove one way or another, then this whole debate will cease. If it wasn't directed at me....sorry for taking offense.

new topics

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in