POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers, page 28

privacy

Pages: << 25 26 27 28 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 16-12-2005 @ 01:32 PM by HowardRoark

Originally posted by justyc
thanks for the reply bsbray11.

i also have another question that maybe someone could answer. if the NIST report is to be believed in regards to how the 2 towers and WTC7 fell, exactly what is being done to secure any current tower block made of steel and concrete from falling down when hit by a plane as that is now such an obvous weak spot in any building worldwide? should they not be banning people from actually working in such buildings if they are so dangerous to be in?

how many of you work in a tower block? have you asked your superiors how safe your building is?

No building is safe from a terrorist attack.

As fot the NIST findings, they made numerous recommendations, which are being reviewed by the engineering community.

iceconferences.com...

releases.usnewswire.com...

reply posted on 16-12-2005 @ 02:37 PM by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As fot the NIST findings, they made numerous recommendations, which are being reviewed by the engineering community.

iceconferences.com...

releases.usnewswire.com...

And did they bother to tell the people who will be spending billions and billions of dollars on retro-fitting buildings and altering future design parameters, that their findings were entirely based on computer models which don't match with the physical evidence at all? And that when their bogus, not-based-in-reality computer models still didn't predict a collapse, that they had to go back and adjust them further to make them progressively more severe and fantastical until they finally did?

NIST should learn a lesson in scientific honesty from this guy. He may have fabricated his results, but at least he was honest enough to confess later. When you promote bogus science, it hurts everybody.

reply posted on 19-12-2005 @ 09:52 PM by billybob

Originally posted by HowardRoark

No building is safe from a terrorist attack.

As fot the NIST findings, they made numerous recommendations, which are being reviewed by the engineering community.

iceconferences.com...

releases.usnewswire.com...

god help engineers. i'd hate to see them go the way of the dodo bird(microbiologists).

no engineer is safe from a 'terrorist' attack.

i'd personally say it was suicide if a man wrapped himself in barbed wire. i know healthy living. i'm a coroner!

reply posted on 1-2-2006 @ 05:23 PM by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Edit: To remove link with questionable content.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by intrepid]

Intrepid: why?

intrepid: We're still waiting for an explanation as to why...

reply posted on 6-4-2006 @ 02:03 AM by AdamJ

I wanted to post this as i cant remember if it has been discussed or not.

NIST analysis of the steel concludes that temperatures were almost exclusively under 250 ºC
see page 12

so therefore heat/fire is virtualy ruled out of possible reasons for the collaspe of the towers?

yet the final report summary cites heat/fire weakening the core columns and causing the floors to sag as the reason for the collapse initiating.
see page 4

Stell wouldnt weaken at less than 250 ºC
so...NIST report debunked?

[edit on 6-4-2006 by AdamJ]

reply posted on 6-4-2006 @ 08:47 AM by wecomeinpeace

The standard answer is this: There was plenty of steel exposed to temperatures of 800+C, but NIST just didn't happen to photograph any before the collapse, nor find any in the wreckage afterwards.

Originally posted by AdamJ
...NIST report debunked?

Long ago.

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 03:47 AM by conjama

What is the name of the professor?

I would like to know the name of this physic professor from brigham university in new york.

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:52 AM by Quazga

So here is a question.

Couldn't the explosives have been planted by the terrorists prior to the planes flying in?

I really don't see how this proves anything as to "who" did it, but rather "how" it was done.

reply posted on 29-6-2008 @ 02:55 PM by Gregarious

reply to post by Muaddib

Muaddib, that is the name of a big Worm-right? Why are you trying to cover-up for these perps? I saw videos of the squibs exploding, even before the plane hit. There were people in the lower floors who heard explosions below them. This was quite clearly a computer controlled demoliltion, and the planes were remote flown into the buildings. The terrorists were not capable of doing it. This is a nasty trick the CIA previously used on the Big Event, on Oklahoma City, and others. You 'empower' someone else to do your dirty work, and then kill them so there is no investigation. And if there are investigations, you control them. Why, oh why, are you siding with these perps? I hope you actually believe what you are saying, but it is doubtful. What is your motive?