Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 33
1
<< 30  31  32    34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
There's simply too much that doesn't add up to support the 'pancake' theory of the govt. But what really persuaded me once and for all that the buildings were demolished is a fact that none of the govt. defenders have been able to satisfactorily explain. It's summed up by an expert in the use of military grade explosives.


Email to Dr. Jones from an explosives expert:

• “I am a veteran of the United States Air Force and served for 10 years as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist.

• “I have read your paper concerning the WTC towers collapse and agree; Military thermite [which contains sulfur as an accelerant] is the only explanation for the molten slag found weeks after the collapse.… Thermite charges used in conjunction with small linear shaped charges could be used to drop the World Trade Center towers.

• Keep fighting the good fight.

• Sincerely,

• Michael …” 1/29/06 Email to Prof SE Jones


The govts' rejection of the possibility of the use of explosives either by the terrorists or others is another example of the official response being scripted and simply unable to withstand serious inquiry or examination. And some people wonder why many are suspicious of govt. complicity. After 911 there was a rush to remove all evidence and ship it overseas for melting down. Quite different than the FAA approach to your typical crashed airliner where they recontstruct the found debris painstakingly over months or years in an attempt to determine what happened.

We didn't need to do that on 911 because the govt. already knew exactly what happened. Thus, Dubya could keep calmly reading the goat story to the 7 year old kids while the attack continued and the towers fell. Dubya's disinterest in the horrific news spoke volumes.




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw


The govts' rejection of the possibility of the use of explosives either by the terrorists or others is another example of the official response being scripted and simply unable to withstand serious inquiry or examination. And some people wonder why many are suspicious of govt. complicity. After 911 there was a rush to remove all evidence and ship it overseas for melting down . Quite different than the FAA approach to your typical crashed airliner where they recontstruct the found debris painstakingly over months or years in an attempt to determine what happened.

We didn't need to do that on 911 because the govt. already knew exactly what happened. Thus, Dubya could keep calmly reading the goat story to the 7 year old kids while the attack continued and the towers fell. Dubya's disinterest in the horrific news spoke volumes.



That's the point I've always tried to make in these 9/11 threads - the destruction of evidence. True believers of the official story credit the fact that we didn't need to examine it because we KNEW what brought down the building, which is incorrect as it was only speculation off of limited amounts of exposure to evidence.

Just because we KNOW an airplane hit the WTC doesn't mean we KNOW what exactly brought it down. That's the point, and we obviously never spent enough time investigating it obviously. Negligence.. total negligence, and for the sake of all the people that died that day.. on top of those who've died in Iraq and Afghanistan - it's just not fair... to throw it all under the rug so fast like that..



[edit on 5/8/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
BS, it is clear that you are missing a basic understanding of the principles of engineering here.

Let me try this once again.

The floor slabs provided a number of functions in the structure. Primarily they bore the weight of the floor and its contents through the use of trusses, they transferred these loads to the interior and the exterior columns.

Their secondary purpose was to provide stability to the exterior columns by “pinning” them in place every 12 feet. In other words, the floor slabs limited effective length of the exterior columns to the distance between each floor.

These are two separate concepts here and I want to be sure that you understand that.

Going back to the first concept, the load transfer between the floor trusses and the exterior columns, you wrote


The hypothetical "sagging floors" would've put no more of a load on the exterior columns than they did before they sagged.


True, the load itself would not have changed, but the direction of the load path would have.

Look at the connection between the truss and the exterior.



Note that the only the top connection is load bearing, the bottom connection is designed to minimize the swaying of the building. (the damping unit is nothing more than a fancy rubberband).

The top of the truss sits on top of the angle clip. The loads from the floor at this point are vertical, with no horizontal component. i.e. it is up and down.

Note that the truss is held in place with two 5/8 inch bolts. These serve to fix the connection between the exterior columns and the truss.

Now what happens if the floor sags?



Note that the direction of the load forces has changed. The sagging floor is no longer just bearing downward, there is a substantial inward component to the forces now.


What of the other case, where the floor is detached from the exterior wall?

I stated: ‘But even without that inward pull, the columns can still buckle on their own with no outside force on them if the loads exceed the critical buckling load.” To which you responded:


Originally posted by bsbray11
Which they would have had no reason to if they weren't buckled in the first place. There were no additional loads after the impacts.


What you seem to be missing is that it was not necessary for the loads on the columns to change. What changed was the columns ability to support these loads. That ability is directly tied to the stabilizing effect of the floor slabs. If that stability is removed, then the columns become susceptible to buckling, even if the load remains the same.

Does that make sense to you?

[edit: resized image]

[edit on 5/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
those diagrams are impossibly unrealistic.

the 'pivotal' problem being the strength of the two bolts holding the truss vs. the strength of the floor trusses.
the official story does not say the floors became disconnected and therefore the perimeter columns buckled.
of course, this is because they know that the perimeter columns with the SPANDREL PLATE(which effectively shorten the columns every to twelve foot lengths, lol) were massively above spec, and were bragged to have been 2000% over.
so, these perimeter columns are:
a. not going to be pulled in by floor trusses
b. not going to buckle if the floors drop out(unless twenty floors drop out).

so, either the official story(which howard USUALLY preaches as gospel) is wrong, or howard's new spin on the official story is wrong.
take your pick.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Haha I find it funny when people try to discredit those who don't hold faith in the "Official 9/11 Story", and end up going against the official version themselves with the argument (Oh.. that hurts
- lame.)

[edit on 5/8/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
those diagrams are impossibly unrealistic.

the 'pivotal' problem being the strength of the two bolts holding the truss vs. the strength of the floor trusses.
the official story does not say the floors became disconnected and therefore the perimeter columns buckled.


Are you sure about that? NIST has clear documentation of the floor slabs dropping within the building prior to the collapse.



of course, this is because they know that the perimeter columns with the SPANDREL PLATE(which effectively shorten the columns every to twelve foot lengths, lol) were massively above spec, and were bragged to have been 2000% over.
so, these perimeter columns are:


2000% ?







a. not going to be pulled in by floor trusses
b. not going to buckle if the floors drop out(unless twenty floors drop out).


What part of the concept of an inverse square law are you having trouble with?




Here: maybe this table can help you.



So once two floors have are no longer providing the nessessary bracing, you've lost almost 90 % of your original load carying capacity.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Does that make sense to you?


Theoretically, sure; that makes more sense, Howard. All of your posts should be that straightforward.


I still don't buy truss failure theory as the global collapse mechanism, but I can see how it at least makes an effort at explaining how the collapses initiated. It makes a big assumption in that there was enough damage from the fire for enough of the trusses to buckle enough of the perimeter columns, though. That's where the theory really lacks, because there's no evidence to support the assumption that there was already sufficient damage.

And of course that's ignoring the rest of the collapses, and focusing on just the initiations, on the first floors to fail.


Originally posted by billybob
the official story does not say the floors became disconnected and therefore the perimeter columns buckled.
of course, this is because they know that the perimeter columns with the SPANDREL PLATE(which effectively shorten the columns every to twelve foot lengths, lol) were massively above spec, and were bragged to have been 2000% over.
so, these perimeter columns are:
a. not going to be pulled in by floor trusses
b. not going to buckle if the floors drop out(unless twenty floors drop out).


And this is a good point too.

I'd nearly forgotten about the spandrel plates also holding the perimeter columns in line. Thanks for the reminder!



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
From the NIST report:






The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural component core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads without collapsing in places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.


In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the
perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.


The Spandrel plates only kept the columns from moving side to side, they didn't restrict the in and out motion.


I'll admit that my use of the euler equation above is a bit simplified, but the concept is valid.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The Spandrel plates only kept the columns from moving side to side, they didn't restrict the in and out motion.


But if some columns were experiencing additional loads from sagging trusses, while still being locked in line with other perimeter columns via the spandrels, would not the spandrels be indirectly compensating for some of the theoretical buckling? Think about it.

Imagine a stretched line of people holding hands very solidly. If someone were to come up and pull at one of these individuals, the hands holding would help to keep that person in line.

And this is still all being hypothetical, of course, Howard. You've still provided no evidence that any of this is valid, real-world stuff. There was not enough buckling to initiate a collapse.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
From the NIST report:

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural component core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.


This is my problem with the NIST report. The whole thing is based on this misleading assumption.
Yes the aircraft may of cause considerable damage, BUT it was only to a small percentage of the building. Like cutting down a couple of trees and expecting the whole forest to fall. Same thing with the dislodged fireproofing. How much of it could have realistically have been knocked off? Enough to cause ALL the columns to heat up enough to fail? Cause fail they did, you can't argue that.
If the floors fell because of sagging, what bought the columns down? Because if the floors were attached strong enough to pull the columns down with them, then the floors would not have collapsed in the first place.
Also multi-floor fires? What do you consider multi-floors in a building that has 110?
Obviously a small percentage if you are NIST


Also the aircraft that impacted building 2 didn't even touch the center columns, it cut the corner of the building. So how did it knock off fireproofing in the central columns?

The NIST report is nothing but a fabrication based on a pre-conceived conclusion formed around a misleading concept. Pls don't expect anyone here to take it seriously.

[edit on 8/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
That's the other weakness of the NIST reports. They're inconclusive due to HOW they were based.

Let's get that scrap metal back here in the U S of A, and start putting pieces back togther! (OOPS! Too late...).



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Like cutting down a couple of trees and expecting the whole forest to fall.


You can't make that sort of comparison.

However the only evidence anyone has of supposed truss failure or what ever, is a photo showing some of the exterior columns bowing inward.

Now some would say the photo's only make the outer columns appear that way. However I personally don't know what to think.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae


Like cutting down a couple of trees and expecting the whole forest to fall.


You can't make that sort of comparison.


Wasn't really meant as a comparison. More of a metaphor...Seeing the big picture, so to speak



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
The new version of 911Eyewitness is going to put you out of business Howard.
Tell Smith as well it's time to retire

911Eyewitness has done some more cool original science analysis indicating nukes were used in the towers to destroy the foundation center steel framework and cause the center transmission tower to collapse first as witnessed on the north tower and confirmed in the NIST report and 911 omission report.

so save your fire weakened the trusswork fantasy in a scrapbook

nukes vaporized the steel as seen with comet tails following massive sections flying hundreds of feet away from the towers and pulverized all the concrete into pyroclastic flows with the power of a volanic eruption

the charade is over folks

word is HOBOKEN is going all the way to court to bring down the last clown

WMDs at the WTC and the media is selling us a pancake breakfast

PNAC's evil doers Cheney, Rumsfeld et al nuked Ameican citizens to start a war in Iraq

History will never forgive them



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Time to retire? Sounds like the way Rick and his cronies speak... funny..
Should be one to look forward to anyway, detonated nukes in the basement emm? And this was deduced from that smoking gun footage?
Should be entertaining to say the least..



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buffy
911Eyewitness has done some more cool original science analysis indicating nukes were used in the towers to destroy the foundation center steel framework and cause the center transmission tower to collapse first as witnessed on the north tower and confirmed in the NIST report and 911 omission report.
massive sections flying hundreds of feet away from the towers and pulverized all the concrete into pyroclastic flows with the power of a volanic eruption


WTF??? Eeerrrmmm.... have you ever seen a nuke go off? Even a little itty bitty one? And you mention nukes, meaning multiple. Right, multiple nukes but no-one noticed the area going up in a fiery ka-boom?
And you refer to pyroclastic flows. Do you have any idea what a pyroclastic flow really is? I'll tell you - it's a super-heated ejection cloud of very hot ash and rock plus some highly unpleasant volcanic gases.
That makes for an amazing combination. And one that so far has remained undetected. They've found asbestos in the dust on the buildings around, but so far nothing radioactive.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buffy
...cool original science analysis indicating nukes were used in the towers to destroy the foundation center steel framework...

nukes vaporized the steel as seen with comet tails


You're kidding, right?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Is there a new torrent link or better yet a direct link to the video or even hosted by Google Video? I'm downloading it from Emule (ed2k://|file|911%20Eyewitness%20(New%20Raw%20Footage%20And%20Av%20Analysis).avi|711874560|83307D534D657438AD5E82F85AAA6FED|/) but it's going frustratingly slow.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I just finished watching the documentary. It's a very patriotic film, you can tell that Richard loves America, loves New York. I was already convinced before watching this documentary that the WTC towers and WTC 7 building were taken down with controlled and carefully planned demolition. This documentary is simply more evidence that demolitions were used.

I haven't read this entire thread, but I saw that Richard was banned and comments deleted from this forum because he was posting torrent links to his film. Seemed to me that the moderators felt threatened by what Richard had to say. Worse was that after he was banned and unable to defend himself here, some moderators was attacking him personally, trying to convince people that Richard only made this documentary to make money. Uh how exactly is he making money if he is posting TORRENT links to download his documentary for FREE.

Another disinfo is AgentSmith's claim that the projectile evidence was one of the major arguments in the documentary. Uh the projectile section lasts for only a few minutes. A few minutes out of a 2 hour and 20 minute documentary. I don't see how the projectile section is inaccurate despite AgentSmith's claims, but even if AgentSmith is right about the projectiles, that would only be a minor matter. From all of AgentSmith's arguments and bashing of Richard I thought the projectile section would have lasted for an hour or something, but it only lasted for a couple of minutes...

As for the documentary, I felt that some sections were dragged out too long, and that the commentator's voice (not Richard's, I mean the other guy) is too annoying. I appreciate Richard's documentary, but I prefer documentaries like Loose Change and 9/11 The Road to Tyranny, I've shown these to family and friends and they liked it and actually watched the entire thing.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leto
Uh how exactly is he making money if he is posting TORRENT links to download his documentary for FREE.


Because he was insisting that people buy his DVD, if you look on other forums you'll see he won't discuss the discrepancies with people unless they buy his DVD, he even argued with someone on his own site saying the discrepancy they were talking about must be due to a pirate copy, until they clarified the fact they had bought it from him and even gave the invoice number.
Who has a 'Grand Premier' for their (new) film in a cinema and charges people to see it? Only to cover costs of course...
We're talking about what is allegedly evidence in a serious criminal investigation here, let's get some perspective.
What would you say if the Government had screened the new Pentagon footage in a cinema, charging to see it (to cover costs of course) and sold it on DVD?



Another disinfo is AgentSmith's claim that the projectile evidence was one of the major arguments in the documentary. Uh the projectile section lasts for only a few minutes. A few minutes out of a 2 hour and 20 minute documentary.


Excuse me but this is the key piece of 'evidence' used to suggest that the debris was fired up and out, it is important if it lasts only 5 seconds. It is not a trivial matter by far and I know I am correct on it. I know at least several of the prominent demolition theory people even agree with me, though they won't say anything publically for whatever reason (hell I wouldn't want to have to be seen agreeing with me in public) and I have to respect their identity.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by AgentSmith]









 
1
<< 30  31  32    34  35 >>

log in

join