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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
wcip.....didn't the planes exploded in the twin towers when they crashed against them?.... Didn't those "explosions" send debris, burning debris and burning fuel into wtc7 and other buildings?..... YES THEY DID....

how about, I don't give a crap whether you like me or not, and you should be staying on topic instead of trying to pick fights....

I'm just havin' a bit of fun with you, Muadibb. Take it easy.

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:20 AM

Originally posted by billybob

i said a ROUGH analogy.

the boat does not represent the skyscaper. the boat represents the space in which the force of moving masses is contained. if you would understand it better, imagine that the boat is on top of a spout of water(the spout of water would be the tower) which is descending back down(like in cartoon whale depictions, you know?).

.....You are still using the boat analogy?....can you not understand that the construction of boats and SKYSCRAPPERS is totally different, hence you can't use a boat as an analogy to how a SKYSCRAPPER should or should not collapse?........

Originally posted by billybob
and, wecomeinpeace, i'll take you up on tower seven. it was clearly imploded by team of crack professionals from the nwo shadow government.
what's also clear, is that it was used as a command center for the demolition of towers one and two.

Riiiight...and what was the name of the movie you saw?.....

Any proof to anything that you said above?.... or is it just wild specualtion based on flawed logic?....

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
What I want to know is why is it so important to so manny people to have there goverments be the Bad guy?

It is important to so many people to know if their government is the "bad guy" and is corrupt because it is counter to democracy and counter to what it means to live in America. - Attero

What I am personally tired of is the desire of so many people to prove that their gov't is the bad guy.

If these buildings were brought down by charges, where the hell did the planes disappear to? Now somebody is going to say that there never were any planes, it was a big hologram or optical illusion, and that the terrorists are still alive.. I say, that kind of thinking is skeptical delusion.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:27 AM

I guess you Found a Touchy Subject - so Many People are not Happy with it!

Gee I wonder what they would do, when they found out that their Goverment DID LIE to them and the Explosives Demolished the WTC Towers and that Islamic Terrorism has as much to do with it, as does the US Goverment.

Fear that Day people - because all HELL WILL Break Loose.

And that Day is Coming my Friends.

Mark my Words....

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:39 AM
Im just glad the professor came from BYU. Now all my close minded republican relatives might actually consider *not* toeing the party line, and consider alternate theories beside the official story. I am in complete admiration of their faith to their religion, but ever since the prophet Gordon B. Hinkley advised the people to continually abide by the laws of their respective nations - there seems to have been no will to desent and question athority; a right afforded citizens of the USA. This professors position neither contradicts the prophets, nor is it respected half as much. But maybe the state of Utah will start to feel out the boundries of our constitution.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:41 AM

Originally posted by billybob
the famous murals at the denver international airport perfectly illustrate the whole plan.

Riiiggghhhttt... So they revealed their plans in a mural in a public place? That's what I call secrecy! So who are these people? I just ask that because it's been 4 years now and we are still untoasted. Their plan seems to have failed. Perhaps they shouldn't have put it on display at Denver? Perhaps terrorists actually got lucky and carried out the attacks.
People, I'm a fan of the 'everyone screws up' viewpoint on life. Look at Pearl Harbour (and let's not derail this thread here, I'm just using it as an example) where the US intelligence services and government failed to communicate properly. It happens.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Darkmind
Look at Pearl Harbour (and let's not derail this thread here, I'm just using it as an example) where the US intelligence services and government failed to communicate properly. It happens.

Look at the Vietnam War and how they FAKED the Crucial Tonkin Gulf Episode that Started the War in the First Place.

Intelligence on Vietnam War 'Faked'

ATS: NSA Study From 2001 Might Show Tonkin Resolution Falsified


COULD IT BE that the Army would FALSIFY KEY Information, that Caused a lng and bloody war?

Makes you think, that if Gulf of Tonkin was like the "Pearl Harbor of the 60's" - and was basicly FAKED; how about the Pearl Harbor of the 2001 - FAKED TOO?


Here is a part of the RENOWN PNAC- Project for the New American Century, which is Home to alof of people from the current US Goverment and the Republican Party, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."

Makes you THINK, doesn't it?

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:24 AM
So if this whole 9-11 "could have been" faked by high level insiders in the US and "world" government with the intelligence community-complicity of certain other nations (e.g. Israel, Britain etc.) and the NYC "Twin Towers" were in fact detonated by professional demolition experts...then this may explain (?) why all the files on all those Five Laughing & High Fiving Israeli Mossad Agents With their Colour Video Cameras Running from Across the River pointed at the Twin Towers (who were skirted away to Tel Aviv within a few weeks of 9-11) are now CLASSIFIED documents marked TOP SECRET status....?

I would like to see if any of our high-fiving Israeli camerman were also...dare we say it?...umm....demolition experts?

That would at least explain that silly NuttinHoney's comments (Benyamin Netanyahu) a few hours later "today, we are ALL Israelis...!!"

[edit on 15-11-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:27 PM
Damage to the SW Corner

NIST states that the damage to the SW corner of WTC7 was from the 8th to 18th floors. (WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final p15)

Below is a floorplan of WTC7 with columns represented as black dots. I've added an approximation of the damaged area in orange. Remember that the damage did not progress to the ground floor, as would appear from this 2D floorplan representation. The 47 storey building was only damaged from the 8th to the 18th floors in this region.

A quick glance at the diagram, a glance at the damage sustained by other buildings in the complex. and a bit of common sense clearly shows that this amount of damage would not have any measurable effect on the integrity of the structure. The effect would be akin to taking a bite out of the side of an apple - the apple does not collapse in on itself.

But we don't need to rely on just common sense. As with all modern buildings on the entire planet Earth, WTC7 was designed with excessive structural redundancy. What this basically means that if any of the load-bearing components of a structure experience a decrease in load-bearing capacity, or completely fail, that load is redistributed to the rest of the structure, and the remaining support assemblies are designed to bear the load.

Without going too much in depth on building redundancy practice in industry and demand-capacity ratios, the NYC Building Code (Adequacy of the Structural Design - (Ch26-1002.4(a)) states:

In regard to strength requirements, the member or assembly must be capable of supporting the following:

1. Without visible damage (other than hairline cracks) its own weight plus a test load equal to 150 percent of the design live load plus 150 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site, and

2. Without collapse its own weight plus a test load equal to 50 percent of its own weight plus 250 percent of the design live load plus 250 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site.

The latter loading is to remain in place for a minimum period of one week, and all loading conditions in Article 9 of the Code are to be considered. Exceptions to the above load conditions are also given in this section.

The member or assembly is also subject to the following deflection requirements: the recovery of the deflection caused by the superimposed loads listed in item 1 above must be at least 75 percent. Also, the deflection under the design live load is limited to the values prescribed in C26-1001.5.

In simple terms, the above means that structural components and assemblies must be able to bear, without any visible damage for one whole week:

1. their own weight, plus
2. 150% of the maximum possible weight from people & furniture in the building and wind, plus
3. 150% of the weight of the building above that it is designed to support.

They must be able to bear without collapse or failure for one week:

1.their own weight, plus
2. 50% of their own weight again, plus
3. 250% of the maximum possible weight from people & furniture in the building and wind, plus
4. 250% of the weight of the building above that it is designed to support.

Buildings are designed this way specifically to avoid them collapsing in case of fire, damage, or stress and 'creep'. Buildings can sustain massive, massive damage without collapsing entirely.

If this were not the case, demolition companies would be out of a job, and you could collapse an entire building by knocking out a few columns - a couple of knocks from a demolition ball would cause a building to collapse completely. If you don't trust in this principle, then I suggest if a truck crashes into your apartment building that you get out as quick as you can before the entire building comes tumbling down like a stack of dominoes in a perfectly symmetrical, near free-fall speed collapse! Fact: The loss of load-bearing capacity caused by the minor damage to the 8th to 18th floors of the southwest corner of WTC7 would easily be compensated for by the redundancy of the structure.

Cause of the Fires
Another question raised by the picture of the damage to the SW corner is: if the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC1 is alleged to have started the fire in the building, then why is there no fire, smoke, or soot damage visible in the damaged region?

In fact, it seems the fires were only visible in undamaged regions of the building.

external image

It should also be noted that the two buildings on either side of WTC7 also sustained damage from the collapse of WTC1. They did not catch fire, they did not collapse.

Demolition Characteristics
The collapse of WTC7 bears a striking resemblance to classic controlled demolitions, whereby the innermost support columns are first severed, followed by outer columns, and finally tertiary assemblies. The near-simultaneous, catastrophic failure of all these components then leads to a gravitational collapse. Buildings are demolished in this manner to ensure that the structure implodes inwards into its footprint. If only certain parts of a structure are weakened, it will either only partially collapse, or will collapse in a downward and sideways direction. The diagram below is a simplified graphical representation of the classic controlled demolition sequence:

And here it is in action:

Notice three things about the collapse:

1. The initial collapse is marked by a kink in the middle of the building as the center columns are destroyed.
2. The outermost walls fall last and "lie down" on top of the rest of the building.
3. The building collapses into its own footprint and in a symmetrical fashion.

Now compare WTC7:

1. The initial collapse is marked by a kink in the middle of the building as the center columns are destroyed.

Image source: NIST

2. The outermost walls fall last and "lie down" on top of the rest of the building.

3. The building collapses into its own footprint and in a symmetrical fashion.

Here is a building that has experienced partial collapse:

And here are a couple that have experienced sideways collapse:

external image
Turkey earthquake

Note that these buildings collapsed due to structural failure, not due to simultaneous destruction of all the supporting components, hence they were not completely destroyed. Also note that the buildings are steel-reinforced concrete and not as strong as steel-framed skyscrapers.

Once again, no steel-framed building has ever completely collapsed from fire and minor damage in the history of construction. The only three buildings to ever do so in the history of mankind were the three buildings owned by Larry Silverstein at the WTC complex, and they all collapsed on the same day, one of them in textbook controlled demolition style.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Watch Larry Silverstein admit on camera that WTC7 was demolished. "Pull it", is industry terminology for controlled demolition of a building.

WTC7. Collapse from fire and damage, or controlled demolition?

You decide.

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:31 PM
Unless im mistaken that video isnt one of the WTC buildings so it proves nothing, yes building can be made to collapse with extensive placement of explosives.

yes, the WTC collapsed from an explosive, the explosive impact of an passenger plane.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Unless im mistaken that video isnt one of the WTC buildings so it proves nothing, yes building can be made to collapse with extensive placement of explosives.

yes, the WTC collapsed from an explosive, the explosive impact of an passenger plane.

The building in the videos and in question is WTC7. It was not hit by a passenger plane.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:48 PM
You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

For your tireless efforts. To have to keep repeating yourself in the face of such overbearing Barbaric ignorance takes great patience. Good work here, wecomeinpeace.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM

wecomeinpeace, you certainly have been busy. If I could give you another WATS. I WOULD! Great work

And to souljah, you really, REALLY couldn't be closer to the truth and people are going to be 'extreme'ly p'd off. Probably not suprised but very angry.

IF any one can get a 47 floor building to fall in symmetry like the one above without the use of explosive devices then that means the demolition companies are going to be out of work. So logic dictates that the building in question (WTC7) did fall from demolition explosives.

If you can give me a better answer, I would like to hear it.


[edit on 15/11/05 by Hunting Veritas]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:57 PM
You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

You got my vote for that post wecomeinpeace. By the way, are you a structural engineer?...I forget if you said or not. I AM a structural engineer (credentials will be giving out if you U2U me anyone who doesn't believe me... I just ask that my real name not be given out). Your post was WELL thought out and just about the most damning evidence. Well done...

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash

could you please present evidence of these claims?

Please provide links, lest you lose any remaining credibility you may have
Thank You

In case you didn't notice, I did give a link and told everyone in which pages you could find the pictures in that link, except one, which wcip posted, and it shows that part of the bottom of wtc7 was demolished by the falling mass of debris from towers 1 & 2. I could not give a direct link to the pictures because the link is in pdf format.

Here is the main link.

and in the following link, which is page 17, which I already posted before...., you will find pictures of 9/11, and diagrams on how the debris from towers 1 & 2 hit wtc7.

BTW, I have no credibility to lose when so many people around here are taking the word of a nuclear physicist professor about structural engineering and the physics behind it.

If you don't know that there is a difference between Nuclear Physics, or nuclear engineering, and the physics behind structural engineering, there is no point in trying to discuss this topic with you, or anyone else who claims a nuclear fusion physicist, is going to know everything or anything at all about structural engineering and the physics behind it.....

Originally posted by muzzleflash
How can you say this man is Not Qualified to have a legitimate opinion on this subject the article says....he is a nuclear physicist....not an structural engineer, with no knowledge whatsoever on buildings or the physics behind buildings.

A nuclear physicist has practically no knowledge about structural engineering and the physics behind it. In fact the article doens't mention him having any knowledge on construction or any jobs he has performed in construction which would give him at least some understanding behind the physics of structures.

Engineering has many branches. It is possible to find a Nuclear physicist, or nuclear engineer, who has studied some other branch of engineering, but for their jobs, nuclear physicists don't need to know structural engineering, and when they study nuclear physics, they do not study the physics behind structural engineering.

BTW....did you even know that engineering is so complex that there are many branches?

Do you also know that, for example, what a structural engineer and an aeronautical/aerospace engineer have to learn in their respective field, is different even thou they both will study the same basics, but one does not know the specifics nor has the knowledge necessary to work on, or to explain the jobs that the other branch of engineering focuses on?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
THEN you state "I am not the ultimate expert..."
Yet For Some reason you dive right into spouting off the same type of pseudo-facts *without the presence of reasonable evidence to support your case* of which you were criticizing in the first place

If I was only an electronics engineer, which I am, I would tell you that you are right, and I don't know anything about structural engineering, but I have worked in construction and I have been a mapper working for a private company, (Attorney's Title, in the mapping department in Miami Florida) making maps of private, public, and government lands, including military bases, which includes skyscrappers and other buildings and properties.

I do have "some" understanding of "some" of the physics behind buildings, skyscrappers, and other buildings. No structure is the same, and the physics and construction behind a bridge, or a boat...., and a skyscrapper are completly different.

However, I am no structural engineer and I am not going to claim that I have the knowledge of a structural engineer, or that I can build a skyscraper. BTW, not all structural engineers know the specifics or have built a skyscraper. There are structural engineers who only specialize in building bridges, or in building skyscrapers, or specialize in any other structure. There is always structural engineers that have experience on building and know a lot about a variety of structures.

Like I said, I am not the ultimate expert on structural engineering, but I know enough to say that this physics professor is not making sense at all.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Are you a Qualified Structural Engineer for High Rise Buildings or Not?
If so, May we see your credentials?

Read above.... this professor a qualified structural engineer?.... nope... Does he have any experience or knowledge about construction or the physics behind buildings?... least there is no mention about it anywhere in that article.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I have a feeling you are not a qualified Structural engineer either; because you do not present your case in a professional manner

Really? stating that a nuclear physicist does not know anything about structural engineering, and giving evidence that he is just making wild speculation is not presenting a case in a professional manner?....

BTW, I have met and worked with professionals, that if you would meet them, you would think I was an angel in presenting my case in comparison to them....

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So, my question is; Isnt it a bit hypocritical to bash a physicist for not being qualified enough to make a judgement; then you admit you are not qualified enough either; But...You act like you know the absolute truth

ok, could you then present evidence that anything that I said about "structural engineering" is wrong?

Please do give examples from engineering sites, and not from "physics professors and politicians" who have no knowledge at all about structural engineering, and obviously don't know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
In the case of 911, there is NO truth !

The govt isnt showing us any of the evidence!

That's a lie right there, because there have been several reports from the government and other agencies outside from the government who have presented pretty much every piece of evidence about 9/11.

Here is a link which has several links from the government, and other independent studies done by real engineers about the wtc collapse.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So basically you have made as big a fool of yourself; as you claim the physicist made of himself, due to the fact you potentially did the exact same thing as the person you are criticizing

i did not do the same thing he did....

I presented my case and corroborated the evidence I provided, presenting excerpts and links from structural engineers who pretty much corroborated the same things i said.

The physics professor on the other hand, just speculates without presenting any clear evidence backing his claims, and made statements which are completly false.

So, do not try to put me down at the same level as this physics professor, because I, unlike him, have made my case.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Since Neither you or the professor are qualified in making professional assessments of the situation under discussion; I think the only choice i have to get any reasonable opinion is to review the assessments of professionals; and there is a huge lack of professionals who are willing to get involved in this case; for obvious reasons.

So you say, but it is not the case. Actually several professional engineers, outside from the government, have made reports about the wtc collapse.

Let's see what some other structural engineers, appart from the links I gave already, have to say about this and who don't work for any government agencies...

The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, was as sudden as it was dramatic; the complete destruction of such massive buildings shocked nearly everyone. Immediately afterward and even today, there is widespread speculation that the buildings were structurally deficient, that the steel columns melted, or that the fire suppression equipment failed to operate. In order to separate the fact from the fiction, we have attempted to quantify various details of the collapse.

The major events include the following:

The airplane impact with damage to the columns.

The ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion (Figure 1).

The collapse, which generally occurred inward without significant tipping (Figure 2).

Each will be discussed separately, but initially it is useful to review the overall design of the towers.
The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

This excerpt in the link is very interesting and do notice some of the words they use. In fact I will make them in bold so you can see them clearly.

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below
, initiating a domino collapse.

Now please notice the references that were used for the above, none of which includes the wild ramblings of a physics professor with no knowledge on structural engineering.


1. Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001).
2. D. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1985), pp. 134–140.
3. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 10–67.
4. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
5. Steven Ashley, “When the Twin Towers Fell,” Scientific American Online (October 9, 2001);
6. Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, (September 28, 2001), also
7. Timothy Wilkinson, “World Trade Centre–New York—Some Engineering Aspects” (October 25, 2001), Univ. Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering;
8. G. Charles Clifton, “Collapse of the World Trade Centers,” CAD Headlines, (October 8, 2001);

Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Excerpted form.

I want to see where did any of us, those of us who KNOW it was not an inside job and can separate the facts from the fiction, ever claim that the towers collapsed only because of the impact of the planes.... or even that there was melted steel... I have never claimed such and actually mentioned the opposite.

You don't need to melt steel for the redundant structure of a skyscraper to fail and collapse. It is a misconception which I have seen members in these forum preach like it was the truth over and over, even after evidence has been presented which shows the contrary.

The impact did cause a lot of damage, but it was not the only reason, or the main reason for the towers to collapse.

Now, let's see some evidence about the collapse of wtc 7.

In the following link you can also use their "search engineering records" on the collapse of the wtc towers, all the towers that collapsed are included in the reports.

Another piece of evidence that denies some of the claims by some members saying "things are being hidden from us" and "there have been reports that we haven't been given"

Here are some other links about why wtc7 collapsed.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If you claim to be a certified Structural Engineer specializing in High Rise Buildings; you will be givin no credit until you present your credentials as Evidence to back up your claims.
That means we need to know where u went to school so that we may verify that you indeed did receive a degree in this profession.

I never claimed to be a certified structural engineer, my own degree is in electronics engineering. Any knowledge I have from structural engineering I learned from working in constructiona dn from working as a mapper, of porperties and buildings, for a private company....

Anyways....since when is my background a topic in here?.....

I provided linsk and excerpts from structural engineers who back everything I said....

You should be providing evidence from structural engineers who have build skyscrapers and who back what that physics professor says...which I doubt you will find.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I believe you need to be put on the spot here; because you are suggesting that more than half of the population on this forum are "idiots".

I didn't say that, you did...... But yes, there are quite a few people around here that would believe any crazy joe tell because it fits with their agenda and with

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is easy lol.
Muaddib "In case you haven't noticed skyscrappers are not trees..."
Muaddib "It would be like building a small scale skyscrapper from dominoe pieces. "

Ok so your professional structural engineering analysis is that Skyscrappers are Not trees; but they are more like Dominoes?

Yes, there is a buckling effect in the floors of skyscrappers when they collapse, which does not allow a skyscrapper to "fall on it's side" like some people are trying to claim.

Let me excxerpt again from that "engineering website" a quote which corroborates what I stated about skyscrapers being more like dominoes when collapsing...

This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

Excerpted from.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
LoL This is becoming very funny actually....

"If you hit it at it's top, or center, you will see that the pieces will fall pretty much straight down."

No one was argueing about which direction gravity pulls; but i have a feeling you think the arguement may be about that.

And I still see that you don't understand that when a "skyscraper" collapses, it will collapse on itself everytime because of the way it is built. When any part of a skyscraper starts falling, the lower parts will collapse on themselves because of the increased weight from above, hence not letting the skyscraper fall much, if at al,l to any side. That's the point I have been trying to make.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I apoligize for having to come after you; but you have no mercy on any posters in this forum of whom you disagree with; so why should i take any mercy when i tear your words apart and use them agianst you?

i once again, I started the mudslinging?.... I initially countered the wild claims from the physics professor, and i tried to be patient explaining that a "skyscrapper" is not the same as a "tree", hence you cannot say that a "skyscrapper" will fall sideways as a "tree" would. People started to resort to insults and trying to belittle me with their wild claims, and I became sarcastic in my responses towards them.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

If you wanna keep treating concerned citizens like "idiots" than I will prove you to be the idiot. Thank you.

Really?....then prove to us, with reliable links from engineering sites please, in here why a skyscraper would fall like a tree would, sideways; and prove, with reliable links, that what I said is wrong.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Dont forget; we are waiting to see your credentials, since you obviously claim to be more qualified than the physicist.
Lets see em.

I have already given my credentials in here before... all you need to do is counter the information I have provided with "facts" from "engineering websites." We are not trying to prove my credentials....we are trying to prove what statements are right, and which ones are false.....

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is on Topic; i believe; because the poster claimed to have a better education than the Physics professor in reguards to the "physics behind structural engineering"

The professor is a "nuclear physicist"..... nothing to do with structural engineering, and there is no mention of him having any experience or knowledge with buildings or the physics behind them.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I am not taking sides; I do not agree with the physics professor nor do i agree with anyone else. I am Undecided. I have gone back and forth enough to realize we need the Govt to release their information before we can make accurate assessments of this particular situation.

But if someone "claims" to be more formally educated in the specifics of a particular field of science; I would like to see evidence of that.
Im not asking very much; because if the particular poster is indeed a certified structural engineer i will heed their professional opinion.

I just want to get to the bottom of this.
Thank You.

If you want to get to the bottom of this, I would suggest you research in these forums the several threads we have had in the past about this same subject.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:51 PM
wecomeinpeace....let me ask you something.... do you see any difference from any of the buildings you provided pictures of that fell sideways and the wtc7?.....

Does anyone know exactly how many floors did wtc7 had?

I can't specifically recall, and I don't have any links which say how many floors it had, but i know it is a lot more than any of those buildings you posted pictures of...

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
then this may explain (?) why all the files on all those Five Laughing & High Fiving Israeli Mossad Agents With their Colour Video Cameras Running from Across the River pointed at the Twin Towers (who were skirted away to Tel Aviv within a few weeks of 9-11) are now CLASSIFIED documents marked TOP SECRET status....?

Riiiiight....I also heard that some people saw Elvis Presley dance around, and singing along at the top of one of the buildings that was left intact, as the towers collapsed.......

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:04 PM
Mauddib....let me ask you this.

When comparing the tree analogy, you say that a skyscraper is not like a tree in the aspect that it is not a single entity? (In the structural engineering world, we call this a rigid structure). Now, a skyscraper IS a rigid structure when falling from the top...i.e. all the pieces (floors) on the very top are still intact and "together". The floors directly above the fire are the floors that collapsed leaving the very top floors intact (rigid). As shown in the pictures posted by someone of WTC2.....the top did start to topple over...i.e. like a tree would. The only thing that could have stopped this toppling effect would have been the total destruction of every piece of column beneath the toppling floor. Why every single piece of column? Because if a single piece of column is left, you would get resistance and therefore an even greater angular moment resulting in more toppling. So, in conclusion, the semetrical effect of the towers demise can only be explained by the total destruction of the buildings columns beneath the already falling debris. But, the offical version is that the floors above pancaked the floors below....which could have happened but would not be a symetrical fall.

As far as the WTC7 stated above...the only cause that makes any kind of sense structural engineering (physics) wise is that it was a controlled demolition.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:09 PM
did you know that WTC7 was the Set for the movie Working girl?

Anyway, lets check WHAT was in the WTC7 before it Collapsed:

From the former two categories, the building housed Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities.

The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council ("IRS"), and the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA").


Interesting Fact no?

Makes you really think, doesnt it?

[edit on 15/11/05 by Souljah]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by billybob

civil engineer? LOL. "physics professor"? your credibility just went molten and can now be located in the sublevels.
he is a physics professor, so quotes will no longer be needed.

Perhaps you don't understand that the credibility of the person that was lost by their statements is yours and anyone else who claims that a physicist of nuclear fusion has to know about structural engineering.....

structural engineering and nuclear engineering are different branches of case you dind't know.... structural engineers do have to know about the physics behind structures, but a physicist doesn't have to know, and most of them do not know, anything about structural engineering.

Originally posted by billybob
however, the world of information is not a honeycomb. it is a fluid. one discipline bleeds into another. salient causes are sometimes found in unexpected places.
like spock, i like logic.

Not necessaryly, while it is true that in some branches of science you have to study and know "part" of another branch of science, it is not the case in all branches of science.

Try to find a nuclear physicist that knows how to build skyscrappers and knows the physics behind structural engineering, and who has not studied this particular branch of science (structural engineering) but only knows nuclear physics.

The article does not mention at all that this physics professor has a degree in any of the branches of engineering, so it is safe to assume that he doesn't have any experience or knowledge on any branch of engineering and much less in stgructural engineering or civil engineering.

Originally posted by billybob
i like fuzzy logic even better.

No wonder you can't understand that there is a difference between nuclear physics and the branches of engineering....

Originally posted by billybob
he said in the paper(which none of the attackers ever seem to read, lol), that he was not privy to all the data.

Yet he is free to speculate and just because he is a nuclear physicist he must be right?....

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in