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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

You probably saw people at the floors below, or above where the planes crashed, where the combination of the plane crash, the explosion from the crash and the ensuing fires all together weakened the steel which collapsed the towers....


Well, lets find out. Anyone have footage of the people waving? I know it's a very sore subject and I mean no disrespect at all to the fallen. Just would like to see if any are on the suppossed floors that were an inferno.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Very good point Odium. I'd like to hear the "official" explanation of that.


You won't get any "official" explanations from me....since i am not an "official, despite you and some other members continously trying to label me, or anyone who does not agree with you....

But I could probably explain to you how and why you were able to count only 4 seconds difference between the collapse of the roof of wtc7 and the rest of wtc7 collapse....

You see....counting from the beginning of the collapse of the roof of wtc7 and the beginning of the collapse of the rest of wtc7 there is a 8-9 seconds difference....

Counting from when you see the last chunck of the roof collapsing to the beginning of the rest of wtc7 collapse there is a 6-7 second difference.....

Counting from the moment when the last particle of concrete falls from the roof, and if you wait a couple more seconds, to the beginning of the collapse of the rest of wtc7 there is a 3-4 second delay....



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MERC
. . .(quotes from my posts about the credibility of the Jones paper) . . .

Irrelevant, but I see what you attempted to do here with your prologue of character smear attacks; it's an obvious smear campaign.


It is highly relevant. After all, the title of this thread is ”Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers.” In other words a great deal of emphasis is place on the fact that Jones is a “Physics Prof.” The title is not “Sanitation Worker Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers.”

Therefore it is entirely relevant for me to review and question the credentials of the person presented as an “expert.”

As for your accusations that I am waging a “smear campaign..” I don’t see you objecting to statements like this:


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Thomas Eagar, like many unscrupulous politicians, has ridden on the back of the 9-11 disaster in order to increase his own fame in academic and industrial circles.
. . . .
Eagar is nothing but a record, play and repeat apparatus for the official story.


-----------------------------------------


Originally posted by MERC"While published papers must be appropriate for developing class analysis of society, they need not be explicitly Marxist.” Even if it didn't go on to say that, what's the problem here, Roark?


The problem is, that jones is not presenting his paper for peer review, or even to a publication venue with a scientific or an engineering emphasis.

He is publishing his paper in a “political” forum. If his scientific and engineering credentials are so good, why is that?




Originally posted by HowardRoark
His research into the facts is alos woefully incomplete.


Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)



The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.


Metalugists have studied the "partially evaporated" steel and have determined that is was caused by a Eutectic reaction. The hot corrosion of the steel was casued by exposure to sulfur, a component of gypsum (drywall).


Which Metallurgists have studied the steel, these?



J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609.


Were the findings included in the official 9-11 Commission report, or NIST report? If they were, then you have obviously pointed out a discrepancy here, but if they were not, then this is pointless and irrelevant, isn't it?


Yes it is pointless and irrelevant, that was my point. There is no proof that the hot corrosion occurred before the collapse. The steel wan not recovered until many weeks had elapsed.

Jones use of the condition of the steel proves nothing and he should know this, yet he elected to include this in his paper? Why?

Is it because this is not a scientific paper?


edit to fix nested quotes.



[edit on 16-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas


Then please Howard, please answer me what was being pulled out of WTC7 when Silverstein clearly said 'pull-it'.

There was no fire-fighters there as you have clearly stated above. So what was silvertein talking about??


You have problems with those reading comprehension tests, don’t you?


So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned


That was when the fire department “pulled” the firemen out and established a clear zone around the building.



Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
And why is there no pictures of this gaping hole? Its not that I don't believe you, it's just I have not seen nor has FEMA said that there was significant damage to WTC7 and even FEMA claimed it was "apparantly" more of a problem with fire that with damage to the structure.

Who would have been around to take the pictures?

The firemen? They just lost 343 of their guys in the tower collapse.

News photographers? They were cleared out of the area after the towers collapsed.

The police? They were in the same boat as the firemen, they were in search and rescue mode where seconds can mean the difference between life and death.


Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
And it's funny that when you bring a firefighters eye-witness details you expect everyone to read and take note, yet if someone who did not agree with you and posted a similar eye-witness account but that eye-witness thinks there were bombs in the building you would probably dismiss them.
~Peace
~

Because the statements from these firefighters (and there are many more firemen that back up Boyle) have the unmistakable ring of truth to them, where statements from the so-called “hero” janitor, don’t.




[edit on 16-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by Muaddib

You probably saw people at the floors below, or above where the planes crashed, where the combination of the plane crash, the explosion from the crash and the ensuing fires all together weakened the steel which collapsed the towers....


Well, lets find out. Anyone have footage of the people waving? I know it's a very sore subject and I mean no disrespect at all to the fallen. Just would like to see if any are on the suppossed floors that were an inferno.


wtc.nist.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...

Have you read the NIST reports on how the fires developed and spread across the floors?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If anyone can get a hold of the BBC One tape than they will see it. I have yet to find images taken from their live feed, however the camera man focused on the area where the plane had hit and you could see the people waving. It wasn't at a window and this was pointed out by the news reporter.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Oh wait...

See here

Look where the impact hole is.
Look where the fire is.

The impact didn't hit that area, although fuel would have been sprayed over it however I do not see how it could have stripped the steel on that floor. And guess what you can see? A woman waving right out of the hole. :O Oh golly oh gosh.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
it was a symmetrical collapse because all four corners went down at exactly the same rate.
it looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, and no amount of division five desk agent obfuscation will change that.
wtc7 was not designed the same as wtc1 & 2. it's 'unique design' was probably not that unique at all. just a typical steel frame high-rise. anyone who has ever played with a wire mesh will know that steel doesn't just instantly fracture on four opposite corners(and the middle) of a huge building.
anyone who can watch that video and say it's not too symmetrical, and it's not suspicious, is sorely confused about reality, imho.

the only 'evidence' which supports the magical collapse theory comes from government and corporate agencies who have it in their best interests to perpetuate the lie(they don't want to be hanged for treason, never mind profit losses).

break ANY structure on one side, and it will fail on that side FIRST.

the core was blown, as we see the penthouse sink, and then the textbook implosion kink can be seen, and then the PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT occurs. when it starts to fall, you can actually see squibs, and dust being laterally ejected. what was the force that cause dust to blow out the sides of the building as it begins to instantly go into freefall?

what was the force that blew the top of wtc6 500ft. into the air, JUST AS THE SECOND PLANE HIT THE TOWER? (confirmed reluctantly by cbs, link it yourself) the official lie states that falling debris from the towers caused the gutting of wtc6, and yet, the towers were still standing while wtc6 was already gutted. jet fuel walked across the street from the north tower, perhaps? LOL.

i gotta give you government shills credit for being pitbulls in the face of such overwhelming evidence that proves(to me) BUSH AND THE NWO DID IT.
well, then again, you are getting paid for it.



[edit on 16-11-2005 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Odium

Please review the timelines of the fire progress across the floors.

wtc.nist.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...

Are these timelines consistent with your claims? If so, please post the page and the information to support your claims.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You have problems with those reading comprehension tests, don’t you?


Now that's not nice is it.


That was when the fire department “pulled” the firemen out and established a clear zone around the building.


Again..... I remember you saying this is a thread a few months ago and I distinctly remember I asked you.

"Why would the fire commander ring the lease owner of a building to ask him to pull firemen out? Isn't a fire commander equiped with enough knowledge to make that kind of decision without the the need for external interference after all he does have to do whats best for the firefighters NOT the lease owner."

I don't think you ever answered the question.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You have problems with those reading comprehension tests, don’t you?


Now that's not nice is it.


That was when the fire department “pulled” the firemen out and established a clear zone around the building.



you are right, I apologize.


some infor on the timeline.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
www.firehouse.com...



Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. . . .

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day.



Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
"Why would the fire commander ring the lease owner of a building to ask him to pull firemen out? Isn't a fire commander equiped with enough knowledge to make that kind of decision without the the need for external interference after all he does have to do whats best for the firefighters NOT the lease owner."


Who says he was asking permission. I think they had already decided to do what they did and the call was just a courtesy.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Oh wait...

See here

Look where the impact hole is.
Look where the fire is.

The impact didn't hit that area, although fuel would have been sprayed over it however I do not see how it could have stripped the steel on that floor. And guess what you can see? A woman waving right out of the hole. :O Oh golly oh gosh.


Do you see where the fires are at?....two floors above her....no fire, yet where she is at.... She probably climbed down from a higher floor and was able to get there. BTW...what exactly do you think that picture suggests?.....



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Wow, I didn't know this thread was even still going... Must have hit a hot topic...

As far as the cold fusion thingy is concerned, Jones had very little to do with Pons and Fleischmann, or their research. All he did is compare notes with them on a few occasions. He had hypotheses, he tested them in a scientific manner, and released his results. Nothing wrong there.

There is nothing wrong with this investigation. Period.

If it becomes something else, like a witch hunt, that's different. Right now, all it is is a hypothesis. Why are some of you so threatened?

Perhaps there are some that latch onto the possibility of a government coverup and hang on for dear life. That, too, is a mistake.

But questioning, and getting others to question, the incomplete findings of what happened is not, as far as I'm aware, a particularly bad thing.

There has been an awful lot of insults flying around here, held in check only by the rules that govern these posts. In my experience (some of you have experienced the same, I'm sure), people resort to insults only when they feel threatened by either more complex or much simpler logic.

Gosh, almost 10 pages of posts in, and some of you aren't even remaining all that cogent or cohesive with the smaller facts.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
it was a symmetrical collapse because all four corners went down at exactly the same rate.
it looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, and no amount of division five desk agent obfuscation will change that.


So where are all the squibs that can be seen in real controlled demolitions?.... oh that's right, they all dissapeared...maybe except one... What sort of conspiracy theory do you have to explain the dissapearance of squibs?...

BTW, if I am a US government agent, you must be a communist working for either the Chinese or the Russians.....isn't that right comrad?....




Originally posted by billybob
wtc7 was not designed the same as wtc1 & 2. it's 'unique design' was probably not that unique at all. just a typical steel frame high-rise. anyone who has ever played with a wire mesh will know that steel doesn't just instantly fracture on four opposite corners(and the middle) of a huge building.


First of, when i was talking about the difference in building structures I was talking about the empire building and the wtc....

Second of all, once again.... you are trying to claim that anyone is able to determine how a building should collapse just by "playing around with a wire mesh"?......

This is ridiculous.....

i had enough of this....

good luck with your discussion...if it can be called that.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
you are right, I apologize.


No problem.


Who says he was asking permission. I think they had already decided to do what they did and the call was just a courtesy.


But why call in the first place, wouldn't they have more pressing matters at hand?



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Politics. If you are going to let a multi million dollar property go up in flames (or in this case collapse in flames), it is probably a good move to let the owner know why.

(and it probably doesn't hurt to make him feel as it he is a part of the decision, even though he isn't)

[edit on 16-11-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   


This is ridiculous.....

i had enough of this....


Thank you, desert mouse. Wise choice.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by bsbray11
Man, you're working overtime on this topic, aren't you Howard? Must be of some importance to you guys.


...Not that is any of your business but as I have said, I am working in a rig in 12 hour shifts...

Maybe you missed it where I specifically addressed Howard, not yourself.


wecomeinpeace also attacked Thomas Eagar,


As a counter to what Roark was saying, no? I have personally attacked no one on this thread.


and you continue trying to attack me, making claims that i don't know what I am talking about


I seriously do think that you don't understand what we are talking about sometimes. Like, in some posts, you respond to something one of us might say with something totally irrelevant, such as Eager's comments, which you tried to use as an argument against the angular momentum problem. There was absolutely no relation there, showing that you didn't quite understand what exactly it was that you were addressing. This isn't a personal attack on you, or at least certainly not meant as one, but just an observation from some of your posts.


BTW, you keep claiming there are problems with "squibs" when i still remember the only "squib" that was seen in one of the videos and photos you have posted in the past, shows just one squib instead of all the squibs that blow from all, or most, windows and are clearly evident in videos taken of controlled demolition sites. But of course, you can't mention this, since it doesn't corroborate the story of "controlled demolition."


The squibs demo theory proponents reference were not meant to go off when they did (charges can be expected to do this, especially with larger jobs: it happens in demolitions), thus they stuck out and were plainly visible. And it wasn't just one squib that was plainly visible.

Here are three in a single video frame:



Here's another:



Another:



Etc., there were plenty enough to photograph.

But what you suggest is that, since there weren't squibs popping out of the buildings that looked like this,



then the explosions coming out of the WTC buildings couldn't possibly have been the same thing.

There are a couple major flaws with this reasoning:

First of all, the buildings were set up to collapse from around the impact zone down, in a downward-progressing sequence. This would mean that the charges would rip down the buildings, floor by floor. Any charges that stuck out were mis-firings, as commonly occur in demolitions.

Secondly, if the buildings were blown up any other way, the jig would be up. Have you forgotten our entire premise, that 9/11 was just propoganda for war? Because if you kept this in mind, I doubt you would've followed such faulty logic, as it would've been totally obvious to anyone watching TV that the buildings were demolished. It would've been a rather messy job, too, as the building would fall everywhere if it were exploded in the same manner as the building above.

There are videos, such as this one, taken from below the collapse at ground level, where you can clearly see squib-like explosions coming out perfectly in-time, in perfect rows, floor by floor, racing down the building. That's how the buildings were set up to fall. You couldn't see this in the major media videos taken from distances because of the free-falling debris obscuring vision.


Yes, indeed, can we get back on topic instead of trying to start more high school fights, and instead of getting off topic and try to buff up the marxist, I mean the liberal story?


Yeah, blame the commies and the liberals. They're the real enemies here, as always. Heil!


Wait a second....I though several members were claiming that the wtc7 collapsed way too "symmetrically" and this shows that it was a controlled demolition...yet this site claims that wtc7 did not fall so symmetrically, and this shows that it was a controlled demolition?.....


Because the roof collapsed first?



Oh, ok. Yeah, I see now. It wasn't symmetrical because of the roof going first. And that video was taken at a distance, which obviously distorts the apparent symmetry, or lack thereof. Things just look totally different from a distance, you know? You'd have to have been standing right under it to really appreciate how chaotic and random the collapse was. Yeah, ok, now I definitely believe that fire caused that.

Maybe you missed WCIP's post that explained how buildings are typically demolished.



Central columns being taken out might just explain why the roof started collapsing first, and then why the middle of the building fell first and the two sides fell inward, just like a demolition.




But wait - the roof fell first. Doh! I keep forgetting. Nevermind all of that.

But seriously, before you start picking out the most minute differences, before it gets to a different of the color of the buildings, realize that no two demolitions will be the same, just as no two buildings will be the same. Demolitions are very individual and carefully-planned events, and it is near impossible to approach such a clean fall with anything other than a controlled demolition. It would have had to have been a miracle for Building 7 to have fallen any other way. And realize that every single official line offered in explanation of this collapse is pure conjecture at best, well-dressed lies at worst, and that this conjecture makes the probability of a gravity-driven collapse caused by fire being so symmetrical no more likely.


Some people try to bring up the B-25 bomber that crashed into the empire state building in 1945, but they fail to tell you that there are many differences between the buildings, the planes, and the speed the planes were travelling.


Don't forget the colors of the planes, and the names of the people working in the buildings.


You probably saw people at the floors below, or above where the planes crashed, where the combination of the plane crash, the explosion from the crash and the ensuing fires all together weakened the steel which collapsed the towers....


No, actually, that's not what he saw. I like how you jump to conclusions, though.

Here are a couple images to accompany the video that Odium has already supplied:





Then of course there's the video Odium posted above.


Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
Then please Howard, please answer me what was being pulled out of WTC7 when Silverstein clearly said 'pull-it'.

There was no fire-fighters there as you have clearly stated above. So what was silvertein talking about??


You have problems with those reading comprehension tests, don’t you?


Priceless!


What you suggest Silverstein meant makes absolutely no sense and is a total twist on how the English language is used. He said pull it, not pull out, and there was no one in the building anyway, and Silverstein himself, in the very quote in question, specifically says that the firefighters didn't want to even try to fight the fire, so he elected to have the building pulled. That's what he said, and that's what he meant.


Who would have been around to take the pictures?


Probably the same kinds of people that took most of the close-up photos and video of 9/11. Some people even taped the collapses from below the buildings, before taking off running for their lives. People similarly took pictures of Building 7 before its collapse, of which many are available. But there are no photographs to any real damage to the WTC7, until the collapse is underway/over.


Because the statements from these firefighters (and there are many more firemen that back up Boyle) have the unmistakable ring of truth to them, where statements from the so-called “hero” janitor, don’t.


Errr?


Well I suppose that makes sense if the "unmistakable ring of truth" is the same ring that backs up your story and no one else's.


Have you read the NIST reports on how the fires developed and spread across the floors?


So I suppose as the fires spread, they died out where they were originally burning. That's what you're suggesting, right? Since there was a woman standing right where the impact ocurred? Burnt out in less than an hour, with so much available fuel, and was then cool enough to walk across?

Btw, maybe you can compact those 392 pages or so in one of those pdfs to something a little more approachable and readable, so as to help us understand what exactly NIST is trying to say. I thought you had already dropped the trick of sending massive documents to read through, as of course no one really looks through all of that crap when the ideas expressed in them can be summed up in a few sentences, and can be more easily analyzed that way.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



Have you read the NIST reports on how the fires developed and spread across the floors?


So I suppose as the fires spread, they died out where they were originally burning. That's what you're suggesting, right? Since there was a woman standing right where the impact ocurred? Burnt out in less than an hour, with so much available fuel, and was then cool enough to walk across?

Btw, maybe you can compact those 392 pages or so in one of those pdfs to something a little more approachable and readable, so as to help us understand what exactly NIST is trying to say. I thought you had already dropped the trick of sending massive documents to read through, as of course no one really looks through all of that crap when the ideas expressed in them can be summed up in a few sentences, and can be more easily analyzed that way.


Actually the fires started in the opposite side from the initial impact as that is where the fuel wound up.

The area by the impact hole was where the fresh air was being drawn into the building. Fires later developed on this face on the floors above and below the main impact. (that particular floor was wiped out by the impact, as you can see by the photograph.)

As far as the 392 pages go, I know it seems like a lot, but it is pretty skimmable. There is a lot of data presented, but the summaries are fairly concise.

The NIST reports were read and reviewed by various experts in the applicable fields, unlike the Professor Jones paper.


XL5

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
If you think about things differently, how could you have used explosives to strighten the descent of the top after it started to tilt? How could you use 1-5 explosive charges on only the floors with evidence of squibs, to get the building to collapse the exact way it did?

Is there a difference between squibs from explosives blowing out window, or pockets of fuel fumes or other combustables? Could the steel supports heat up if they are compressed? If they wanted to take the building down, why did they wait so long or why didn't they wait longer untill every one was out?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join