911 WTC collapse, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 14-9-2005 @ 10:17 PM by Wolfpack 51
The Fox news channel had their special on Sunday 9/11/05. During that program, there was a clip with the reporter, darn I forget his name, but he was all over T.V. with the Katrina Storm, stated they had just heard a loud explosion, and he was not refering to the planes.

I have had the belief since the day it happened it was rigged to fall. This was my immediate belief when I saw them fall on T.V. I hold to the theory that some how our government was involved. It does sound a bit looney, but I see it as fact.

The more I read into it, the more I am sure this was an orchestrated plan that is still being played out.

Taking up the Twin Towers, and the explanation on the Discovery Channel of how they fell, I feel that these educated gurus' think common sense is dead.

If, as every sane person believes the Towers were brought down by airplanes, why did the 2nd tower fall 1st? Given that the bulk of its energy source left out the side of the building in a ball of fire? Also note when watching the tower fall, that as it started to lean in the direction of where the plane hit, it corrected itself to fall perpendicular to the ground. Simple common sense says if you knock out a corner of a structure, reguardless of its initial design, gravity willl force that weak side to fall 1st, and continue to fall in that direction without correction.

In a metallurgical investigation, in order for the structure to fall evenly, a unified heat source would be needed to weaken the support members evenly to a point that they would become elastic, unable to support the above weight. At a precise moment the energy of the above weight would fall evenly and continue to the ground. This is not possible with the fuel that was present. Some members may have weakend, but not all of them to give the pancake fall that we witnessed. Without all members being close to the same measure of elasticity, the building would have not fallen evenly, nor to the ground.

If bringing a building down of this size was as easy as igniting Kerosene on a floor with some weight above it, why do engineers go to school to study physics and load bearing technologies to do precise demolition work?

It was controlled demolition, we will not have the luxury of proving this though because none of the debris remains, it was controlled and gotten rid of quickly, so no analysis could be performed by outside sources to detect the presence of explosives, nor to do the metallurgical analysis of the grain structure of the beams to detect any non-uniformitys to the molecular make up of the steel.



reply posted on 15-9-2005 @ 03:48 AM by TheShroudOfMemphis
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually quite a bit of debris remains. They're using a good chunk of it to build a new warship, and there is more debris that hadn't been cut up or sold for scrap. A lot was sent out to people to build memorials, and for other uses.



And here's some facts about the steel:
911research.wtc7.net...


"Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage."



"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything." - Mayor Bloomberg



"During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, One hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fishkills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation."



FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study, "Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)."


And yes, some pieces are being used for memorials.


reply posted on 18-9-2005 @ 06:23 AM by aelphaeis_mangarae

www.structuremag.org...


The link isn't working Howard.

As a researcher of 9/11, I would love to take a look at it.


reply posted on 4-1-2006 @ 12:10 PM by FEMA
Apart from your claim that the term "elastic" was falsely used above, which is absolutely correct, and the initial description of the modus of elasticity, you are talking complete and utter bs. "FEMA", eh? fitting...


I stated: As it pertains to engineering the modulus of elasticity of a material defines its ability to maintain its dimensional stability once acted upon by another force.

You sighted: "The elasticity of a solid is inversely proportional to the strength of the material - see Hooke's law." Yes, this defines Hooke's law.

If the material is *isotropic* (isotropic means omni-directionally consistent), its strength is characterized by the modulus of elasticity."

Why you'd use an example of two *different* meanings for two different things is beyond me. If you pulled them from some place on the Internet I suggest you go back and read the material over again. In such a case you'll discover that the writer is using one after the other to highlight the difference between *two different things.*

". . . you are talking complete and utter bs. "FEMA", eh? fitting..."


Please provide an example, not a loosely worded accusation. My comment was made through one of the things I do for a living - I teach/instruct/facilitate the curriculum on the constutents of firefighting. This also includes structural integrity, fire origin and analysis, along with engineering as it pertains to structural analysis and failure. I am also a working Captain firefighter so I not only teach, I actaully fight fire.

While you are presenting your evidence that what I am saying is complete and utters bs, please explain what you mean by: FEMA, eh? fitting . . ."

And, please tell me how this statement applies?

"Maybe next time attempt at least the slightest research on the topic before you spew grand phrases.

Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags