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.

 

Chemistry/Physics Behind the Attacks

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
If bsbray (and I) are correct and you need a lot, blowing out every floor, then I am baffled as to what caused the Marriott Hotel to fall because I know there was no one in that building installing large quantities of explosives.


All of the buildings at the WTC Complex had to be brought down eventually because of the damage suffered from the debris from the collapses of 1, 2, and 7 WTC. There may or may not have been explosives in other buildings, I don't know, but I don't think it would be necessary, and I don't think any other buildings suffered total collapse. Only 1, 2 and 7.

Conventionally, from what I'm seeing, they would need large amounts of explosives to take out the perimeter columns. The perimeter column demolition was the real show. The remains of the core of WTC1 falling looked pretty conventional to me. What was left of that core just fell straight down upon itself.

Unconventionally, I have no idea how many explosives it would've taken to cause what we saw of the perimeter columns, or if it would have taken any at all. Our military is some 60 years or so beyond basic nuclear capabilities, and the public budget has been fat enough during the whole time since then. I can't even guess what types of explosives they have at their disposal, or what kinds could have been used on the perimeter columns. It would be pretty arrogant to assume, if this was an inside job, that we could pinpoint exactly what technology may have been used.




posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't think any other buildings suffered total collapse. Only 1, 2 and 7.


That is incorrect. The Marriott Hotel collapsed when the South Tower fell on it.

Or should I just say it fell at the same time that the South Tower fell, because it seems no one here believes that it could fall from another building falling on top of it.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't think any other buildings suffered total collapse. Only 1, 2 and 7.


That is incorrect. The Marriott Hotel collapsed when the South Tower fell on it.

Or should I just say it fell at the same time that the South Tower fell, because it seems no one here believes that it could fall from another building falling on top of it.


i don't think anyone ever mentioned the marriot. i believe that thousands of tons of exploding steel building will crush a building right next to it easily.
in fact, the bankers trust was SPEARED by a perimeter column near the TOP storys.

i just saw some of the only pictures of the aftermath, taken on sept, 13th.
you can see glowing spots on the steel, and a very large pool of yellow hot molten steel:
zombietime



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Wow billybob, good pictures. I'm still unsure if we're seeing rust or red glowing on some of the steel, I tend towards the latter, though. In either case, one has to wonder what mass was falling within the footprint to pancake, but I guess we know that already.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
BillyBob those are some nice pics. Thanks for the link, man.


Originally posted by craig732
That is incorrect. The Marriott Hotel collapsed when the South Tower fell on it.

Or should I just say it fell at the same time that the South Tower fell, because it seems no one here believes that it could fall from another building falling on top of it.


Maybe this is more of a judgment call.

WTC3 (Hotel) after WTC2 collapse:



And WTC1:




The only things left of the Twin Towers were a few lower floors' worth of perimeter columns on about one side each, and WTC7, which was hit by no plane and a neglible amount of debris, suffered a much worse fate structurally:

external image


Pretty amazing for a skyscraper of that size.



Anyway, WTC3 apparently had to be further demolished as a part of the clean-up of Ground Zero, as you can imagine by looking at the pics, so it wasn't completely collapsed. It was pretty messed up though.

[edit on 26-2-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I've been working on an AutoCADD drawing putting the NIST typical floor plan into a scaled drawing. It's rather interesting to say the least. If anyone can tell me how to post a picture, I'll post what I have so far.

As for the drawing. The columns that are given in the NIST report are seriously over exagerated in the typical floor plan. When you see the scaled drawing, you'll see what I mean.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I'd suggest uploading it to tinypic or imageshack and linking to it.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
i2.tinypic.com...

Ok..Here is my attempt. If this works, my drawing will be on the left and the NIST drawing is on the right. You can tell the NIST drawing because it has some things labeled. My drawing is scaled relative to the NIST drawing. As you can see, the core columns are exagerated in the NIST drawing. Why? Is it because at that size, we couldn't see the columns, so they had to scale them up? If so, why isn't there a note somewhere stating this? Also, why would these engineers and scientists be misleading? I mean, as an engineer, I know how important scaling, notation and accuracy are. So, why does NIST (a department made up of engineers) ignore these basic fundamentals?

Or, are the core columns scaled up in the NIST drawing to make it look like the floor joists (trusses) are weeker than they actually were? Because, in my drawing the floor joists just look a lot stronger to me than the NIST drawings joists (even though the joists are the same size in both drawings). Someone please explain why they would do this.

Edit: I used the figures from the NIST report for typical floor framing plan and Core column layout. My drawing is a combonation of the two and actually am using the core layout from the 84th floor instead of using the 95th. If I had used the 95th (as does NIST) core layout for my floor plan, the columns would be even smaller.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Could NIST be leaving out descriptions of larger columns but including them in diagrams? There were definitely core columns seen at Ground Zero much larger than any of the core columns they described, but they also only described core column dimensions for certain floors if I'm not mistaken, and even then not all of them. Right?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I see what you're saying bsbray, but the NIST drawing says it is the 95th floor framing plan. So, I'm just assuming that they would have used the 95th floor core column plan also. I know there were larger columns than NIST shows in their typical box members and shapes. Also, that drawing of the box members and shapes says they are between floor 83 and 86. NIST clearly ignores anything below floor 83. How convienient. The whole NIST report is just one big misleading piece of crap after one big misleading piece of crap. IMHO.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Well, it's the last installation of a trilogy of those. Compared to the 9/11 (C)ommission Report, it downright climaxes in objectivity and inquisitiveness.

I have the feeling some of those contributing clearly know what's going on and act accordingly, which is probably tolerated because noone expects people to actually read NIST's report completely, unlike the prosaic and well marketed 9/11 CR. Take for example Frank Gayle's metallurgic analysis.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
By the way, I haven't got a single replied - except for the automated response from Cheney's office.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I figured as much Valhall. This whole misleading NIST report to me is a sham of a document. If they can't even have correct drawings in their report, what else is incorrect in it? There is definately a cover up going on but what they are covering is the question.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
i2.tinypic.com...
my drawing will be on the left and the NIST drawing is on the right.


Four of the core columns on your drawing are in different spots than the ones in the NIST drawing. Which one is correct?

[edit on 4-3-2006 by craig732]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I figured as much Valhall. This whole misleading NIST report to me is a sham of a document. If they can't even have correct drawings in their report, what else is incorrect in it? There is definately a cover up going on but what they are covering is the question.


Well, my comment is - EXACTLY. We can't model this without correct drawings. And there is no good reason the data can't be provided to the public - they paid for it. Well, there's no reason why some one hasn't had the decency to respond to me either.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Of course there is.

I have one question: Why did you, in that Pete Price interview, state that ever since 9/11, you haven't seen any evidence suggesting there was something wrong with the official theory, unequivocally?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
Of course there is.

I have one question: Why did you, in that Pete Price interview, state that ever since 9/11, you haven't seen any evidence suggesting there was something wrong with the official theory, unequivocally?


I didn't say that. So I can't answer that question.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
"And I can't say that I have ever found anything that would lead me to believe that the US government was in [inaudible] set up 9/11."

Ok, then. I was trying to paraphrase what you had said from memory, and I was wrong. So what about the quote above, which is accurate?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
"And I can't say that I have ever found anything that would lead me to believe that the US government was in [inaudible] set up 9/11."

Ok, then. I was trying to paraphrase what you had said from memory, and I was wrong. So what about the quote above, which is accurate?



That sounds about right. I stand by that statement. So far I have not seen anything that leads me to believe the US government was in on setting up 9/11. And by the way, not only did you completely mess up what I said, but you hung the "unequivocally" on the end. The statement I made was a very open-minded statement. It doesn't rule out any possibilities. But why are you jumping to the conclusion that because I want to find out what ultimately caused the buildings to fall as they did is some kind of "unequivocal" statement that the U.S. government was involved in setting up 9/11? There would have to be quite a few assumptions in there wouldn't there?

What if some one actually was able to get to the data from NIST; model the buildings; and show they couldn't have collapsed the way they did without explosive help? At that point, that's where you're at - there had to be explosive help. You can't just jump from there to

AND BUSH DID IT!

right? This is the type of illogical and flawed non-thinking that tends to turn people away from theories. You just can't make illogical jumps like that. You have to keep plodding forward and looking for the evidence, the facts.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Listen, I told you I was trying to quote from memory, I had listened to this when it first appeared some weeks ago, and that I was wrong. Why go on and on about it?

Next, you do not need a full-blown FEA to found the suspicion on that the administration, and let's leave Bush out of this, was heavily complicit. Just look at the way they handled the "investigation". The way they gagged people. The way they confiscated surveillance tapes WITHIN THE HOUR. The way they didn't invite or mention eyewitnesses contrary to their story before the 9/11 Commission. The way Bush and Cheney were "questioned" without documentation, behind closed doors, together.

Is none of this evidence that they set this up, partly or completely, in your eyes? Because quite frankly, this is what you said.




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join