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: 26
4
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Has anyone read or talked about the link between the elevator shafts and the implosion of the buildings?

[edit on 6-12-2005 by curious5]




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious5
Has anyone read or talked about the link between the elevator shafts and the implosion of the buildings?

[edit on 6-12-2005 by curious5]


I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that the explosions of the elevator shafts could have acted like demolition explosions, making the towers implode like demolitions? If so, maybe...but, the fuel would have had to explode in many different areas and at many different times. If that is not what you are talking about, then I have no idea. Please explain a little more. I haven't heard of this theory yet. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I read somewhere a while back on the internet about the design of the trade centers and the elevator shafts being part of the integerity of the entire structure. It was stated that not a thousand or a hundred but a few, twenty or more per say, explosions could weaken the entire structure to the point of colapse. I have not be able to find the website which this was written on but it went into great detail, providing mock blueprints and written proof of work being done IN the elevator shafts.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
It would be really cool if you could find that link. I'm interested in this. Please try and find it if you could. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Believe me, I'm looking, just can't remember the link. Stumbled across this one though, never seen it before. Can't read Danish but it has some of the best videos. Seems to be implying, missiles, laser and a variety of other causes for the tower destruction.

www.terrorize.dk...



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I just finished reading the NIST report on the WTC collapse. I have to admit that was one of strangest works that I have ever read. Talk about a piece of PC garbage, dancing around the subject, too afraid of offending someone to really do anything. How much taxpayer money did this thing cost? After reading it you can put away your theories of implosions, pocket nukes and aliens from outer space. In my opinion the two towers of the WTC were probably two of the best designed buildings in history. They had to be, in order to not have collapsed when the planes hit them. There is a conspiracy here but not the type that you think. I have just one question "Who pocketed the money that was saved by using substandard steel?". Fire caused the collapse of the towers and of WTC 7. It didn't melt the steel, it didn't get hot enough for that. What did happen though is that it did get hot enough to cause the steel to react with sulfides from the fire and through a corrosive effect weaken the structure enough to start the collapse. Once that collapse started there was nothing strong enough to stop it. The information is right there in the NIST report along with a picture in Appendix C that shows an I beam nearly eaten away by the corrosive effect.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've just looked at that clip for a bit and I think what you called melting is actually the cap tilting outwards. That looks like the South Tower, which tilted quite a bit. After the 2.5 second tilt or so of the cap outwards, the more explosive events begin, and the fulcrum for the tilting is effectively destroyed.

What you're seeing in that video clip is the destruction of the fulcrum of that tilt. That video shows exactly why WTC2's cap did not continue falling outwardly: something blew it up at the fulcrum. And you can even see the actual destruction from the blast very plainly.

Thanks for that link, btw.



yea, i think you might be right bsb



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The "fulcrum" was what? The exterior wall? Which was suddenly supporting the (moving) weight of the entire top of the building?

How was this wall supposed to be able to do that?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have just one question "Who pocketed the money that was saved by using substandard steel?".


What substandard steel?

I have seen no reports that the steel was substandard.

The fireproofing, on the other hand, is a different story.

The question could be asked “Who pocketed the money that was saved by the substandard fireproofing installation?"

The answer to that question is a “gotcha” or should I say a “Gotti-ya”.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Either #1 ... Jumped out of the plane in the building then went around in the building Blowing it up ?????

Or that # 2 .... Someone had gotten in the WTC's and planted bombs on the floors that they intended to hit .. If this is the CASE we are in a HECK OF A PERDICAMENT ... because why would they place those and no more before they knew that the security would be stepped up .. .. UNless they are just STUPID .... Then ... I could say OH YEAH .... They are just DUMB !! .. My uncle used to work for TI and used to have to ... Go over and Teach some foreign student English ... he told me That they actually burned down a US Embassy ... and by the time they got to the 3rd floor they had burned the building out from underneath them .. If this is the case ... Then .. I would not Doubt their thought process ....



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

They did it at OKC, they did it again in NYC, and they won't hesitate to do it once more so long as people keep denying to themselves the obvious reality. It's my guess that OKC was a practice run for 9-11.


OKC is facinating because it was such a mess.
I thought about it as maybe someone experimenting with how much they could get away with. Im not sure if it was a specific practise run though. The whole thing is very deep but very interesting just as to what exactly they were up to



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The "fulcrum" was what? The exterior wall? Which was suddenly supporting the (moving) weight of the entire top of the building?

How was this wall supposed to be able to do that?


Fulcrum:

The point or support on which a lever pivots.

- Answers.com

There you go, Howard.

Next maybe you can pull out that one you tried earlier, that the caps weren't really tilting, but it just looked like they did.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
So, after reading the NIST report, can you tell me what exactly allowed the towers to collapse in full, from top to bottom, from the failure of single floors?

I'm sure it went into a lot of detail about how the NIST team thinks the first floor to fall failed, but... how did the rest of that go again? I don't even think they tell you.

But, oh well! As long as it sounds convincing. And apparently it did.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that the explosions of the elevator shafts could have acted like demolition explosions, making the towers implode like demolitions? If so, maybe...but, the fuel would have had to explode in many different areas and at many different times. If that is not what you are talking about, then I have no idea. Please explain a little more. I haven't heard of this theory yet. Thanks. "end quote"

I think the idea would be to undermine the integrity of the buildings by setting off a series of small explosions after or at the same time of impact. During all the comotion and shock no one would notice a few smaller explosions. I have read countless eyewitness reports of smaller bangs being heard. The elevators plumeting through the ground level. It seems there are countless ways in which this could have happened. But the only thing I think anyone agrees on is that there is no way an airplane could bring down either one of those buildings.

[edit on 6-12-2005 by curious5]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Another website supporting the elevator shaft theory, sorry I cannot find the original site I posted about, still looking though.
holyconspiracy.com...

This one is a little extreme in the religious department, so be prepared.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So, after reading the NIST report, can you tell me what exactly allowed the towers to collapse in full, from top to bottom, from the failure of single floors?


How much weight was that single floor carrying?

Or maybe you think that when a floor collapses the floors above it do their best Bugs Bunny and, as they have never studied the effects of gravity, gravity has no effect on them...



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by bsbray11
So, after reading the NIST report, can you tell me what exactly allowed the towers to collapse in full, from top to bottom, from the failure of single floors?


How much weight was that single floor carrying?


How much weight were the whole caps carrying? Everything above the impact points?

I'll give you a hint: much less than what was below.

You're suggesting that a relatively small amount of mass crushed entire buildings, from top to bottom, into nothing but dust and shards of steel. Symmetrically. Without losing speed the whole time.

WTC1's cap, for example:



Look possible?

I'm sure if you convinced yourself that the towers were poorly designed, you could see through that though, of course. Or if you imagine the caps crushing one floor at a time, conveniently ignoring the fact that much energy and thus momentum would be spent on each floor, and that's why the caps shouldn't have been able to reach the ground in the first place.


Or maybe you think that when a floor collapses the floors above it do their best Bugs Bunny and, as they have never studied the effects of gravity, gravity has no effect on them...


Gravity is a relatively weak force. When you have so much steel in between the impact points and the ground, the large amount of steel is going to keep the smaller amount of steel from getting there. If I'm not mistaken, it's the much greater force of electromagnetism that prevents objects from plowing through one another on an atomic level, but I could be wrong.

At any rate, it wasn't a clear drop for the caps. They had much more mass in their way than they in themselves possessed. And that mass didn't even cause the collapse to slow. I think that alone would lead any unbiased, clear-thinking individual to face facts that some 3rd force was involved in bringing those towers down.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Also keep in mind that the construction of the towers became progressively stronger towards the base and also at the mechanical floors, with thicker columns, higher grade steel, stronger assemblies, and greater load-bearing capacities. And hence, ever-increasing resistance to the debris falling from above. The caps were the lightest parts of the towers. If we were to represent the strength and weight of various areas in a tower by color density, it would look something like this:



[edit on 2005-12-6 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
i don't know how often this has been pointed out, but, i believe there is a(nother) major logical flaw in the pancake theory.

nist reports that the outer wall was pulled in by the sagging floors. this indicates that the floor joist connections have more strength than the walls. yet it was these same connections that are supposedly the ones that were underdesigned and consequently, failed. obviously, the floors are designed to carry mostly a gravity load, so the true strength of these joist seats isn't their ability to pull laterally(although they did help transfer those loads, too), but rather their ability to resist downward loading.

so, in other words, it's kinda like snow tires being outperformed by racing slicks on black ice.

if the floors were strong enough to pull the wall in, then the idea that these connections were the lynch pin for the whole tower is ridiculous. especially since the ones that did the alleged pulling were also the first to fail. the magic joist seats simultaneously initiated the collapse by pulling in the whole side of the building, and then the other several thousand completely undamaged, unheated, uncompromised connections managed to offer ZERO RESISTANCE for the rest of the collapse.
of course, as already pointed out, if the floor joists connections fail first, how does the concrete get crushed into a fine powder? you can't grind something between two other things unless there actually are two other things. a floor section which has failed is then falling and can offer no resistance for the crushing of concrete.

i've never seen someone grind up some herbs and seeds with just a pestle. you need the mortar, too. same deal. crushing something as hardy as concrete into powder requires a great downward force, and an EVEN GREATER upward resistance.

i'd like to point out, that at this point in the discussion, the official lie looks like a headless chicken running willy nilly all over the place, not realising that it's dead yet. (not that it hasn't always looked like that to those of us with 'eyes to see' and 'ears to hear' and plain old horse sense.
)



[edit on 6-12-2005 by billybob]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
crushing something as hardy as concrete into powder requires a great downward force, and an EVEN GREATER upward resistance.


I'd say the foundations as depicted in the funky picture above look pretty solid. They look like they'd exert a fairly serious upward resistance.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join