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.

 

Time to prove the official report right

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I kind of de-railed the "pull it" thread, so I'm asking this in a new thread. I'm getting sick of the official theory believers on here saying "where's the proof of demolitions (bombs)".

I want to know. Where's the proof that a building with asymetrical damage can collapse symetrically.

Show me one time in history that this has ever happened.

Or even, if you could show us all with physics calculations that it is even physically possible for it to happen.

You have to ask yourself, why do demolition companies sever up to 90% of the support structure of a building when they are demolishing it? Because they know that one bit of resistence will cause the building to fall lopsided. Where the WTC buildings compromised up to 90% of their support structures? No? Well then how in hades did these buildings fall symetrically?

I'm mostly talking about WTC 7 but WTC 1 & 2 apply as well.

I want to focus on the proof of asymetrical damage causing a symetrical collapse in this thread. Either video, audio, anecdotal, mathmatical etc. evidence please.



[edit on 1/24/2007 by Griff]




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   


I want to focus on the proof of asymetrical damage causing a symetrical collapse in this thread. Either video, audio, anectoctal, mathmatical etc. evidence please.


Good idea Griff but I think this is going to be a very short thread.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I like to think that there was "divine intervention".... that brought those buildings straight down...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Here you go.
www.gpoaccess.gov...

It isn't perfect but it does offer a great deal of what you are asking for.

If you are interested in learning more, I suggest reading about steel frame skyscraper construction and steel frame demolition versus reinforced concrete demolition.

Afterwards, go back and watch videos of the WTC collapse and see if you'd still classify it as a symmetrical collapse.

Good luck with your info hunt.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Afterwards, go back and watch videos of the WTC collapse and see if you'd still classify it as a symmetrical collapse.


First, thanks for the link. I'll look at it.

What wasn't symmetrical about the collapses? Do you mean 1 & 2 or 7? They were all symmetrical. Their center of gravity remained in the center of the debris. That is symmetrical.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Here you go.
www.gpoaccess.gov...

It isn't perfect but it does offer a great deal of what you are asking for.


The 9/11 commission report? Are you serious?


If you are interested in learning more, I suggest reading about steel frame skyscraper construction and steel frame demolition versus reinforced concrete demolition.


Just for sh*ts and giggles, why don't you tell us what the difference is.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Here you go.
www.gpoaccess.gov...

It isn't perfect but it does offer a great deal of what you are asking for.

If you are interested in learning more, I suggest reading about steel frame skyscraper construction and steel frame demolition versus reinforced concrete demolition.

Afterwards, go back and watch videos of the WTC collapse and see if you'd still classify it as a symmetrical collapse.

Good luck with your info hunt.


Where is the part that describes the physics/mechanics/details of the collapse? That frikkin' report is 585 pages, and it seems to mee it's 90% political nonesense and/or long and tedious descriptions of the painfully obvious. I read the 47 page section called "Heroism and Horror" as it seemed like the most likely place to look for such details, but it just states that they collapsed and tell you how many died. It doesn't really explain a lot.

I can't be bothered reading the whole thing looking for this, so could any of you with a bit of insight tell me where does it explain how the buildings collapsed?

Heres the content, my bolding... Removed most of the sub-headings

1. "We Have Some Planes" 46p
2. The Foundation of the New Terrorism 24p
3. Counterterrorism Evolves 37p
4. Responses to Al Qaeda's Initial Assaults 37p
5. Al Qaeda Aims at the American Homeland 29p
6. From Threat To Threat 41p
7. The Attack Looms 39p
8. "The System Was Blinking Red" 24p
9. Heroism and Horror 47p
10. Wartime 141p
10.1 Immediate Responses at Home
10.2 Planning for War
10.3 "Phase Two" and the Question of Iraq

11. Foresight--and Hindsight 171p
12. What To Do? A Global Strategy 269p
13. How To Do It? A Different Way of Organizing the Government 214p



It seems to me this report is about why theres a need to go to war with Iraq, as they spend hundreds of pages describing this "threat", but they don't really give any explanations to the many questions we are asking about what really happened that day. Was it really the commission's job to tell us we should go to war with terrorists, or was it to explain what happened? I was looking forward to seeing some real work here, but this to me looks like pure propaganda



Oh and I just felt like adding that since this thread is about proving the official report, maybe we should look at other sources than the report itself if we are going to find independent backing for it?


[edit on 24-1-2007 by DrLeary]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Just for sh*ts and giggles, why don't you tell us what the difference is.


Because it is complex and I don't have time to teach engineering online. There are many resources out there, some online and many in colleges all over the world.

A good place to start is on the difference in load bearing and material characteristics. Steel joints under high pressure (like the WTC) will give out where as steel reinforced is much stronger and some support structure will hold (thus concrete buildings often slump and/or topple during a failure).

Another area to look at is how they go up for an idea on how they would come down. Steel buildings are quite literally tens of thousands of bolted together pieces where as a concrete one is more like a solid stoney structure with a steel skeleton for minor flexibility. Once you get a fail point in a steel building, the pieces start to separate and you get many failures from over stress, torque, and deformation. Thus the building becomes a mix of free falling pieces more than a single thing that can topple.


I have no intention of arguing the point, I'm not on a debate team. You asked for evidence and information, and if you want to seek them, I offered a direction to look. To your request for evidence, math, and proof, I offered you an enormous book of it, but if you dismiss it, I have nothing left to offer you.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I'd also like to ask for people to post any information regarding "botched" demolitions. Video would be the best and maybe some background info...i.e. how many columns didn't fail etc. I've been looking for some, here are a few.


* The explosives experts subcontracted by the demolition company
failed to make the structure collapse by blowing up key struts.
[It turned out that the superstructure is 8- and 10-inch pipes,
each a full one-inch gauge steel instead of 1/2 inch as originally
thought. I smell contract lawsuit....] A planned two-step
explosion of the superstructure and then the building was apparently
halted when the first round just tipped the whole structure
about ten degrees.


Source: yarchive.net...

That one is fun to read. Notice that after two or three attempts to even "pull" it with cables failed to bring it down. Know what they had to eventually do? An arc welder had to enter the building and "score" rings around the structural tubes.

And I thought building damage causes collapses of symmetry?

Then there's this video that we've probably all have seen.

www.compfused.com...

The funny thing about this video is that even though there ARE explosives to take out a floor at the base, the structure doesn't fall apart when it hits the ground. How telling.

Here's another one. This is about the same as the tower in the previous link.

www.lovethatfun.com...

Notice the same thing happens.

People are going to say "but the buildings are different than the towers and WTC7". Yes they are. I'd like to say back that steel and concrete are comparable when it comes to compression. Compression alone that is. Put concrete in tension or shear and it's strength goes down the tube.

So far, that is all I can find. It is a well known fact that asymmetrical damage will not cause a symmetrical failure.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Because it is complex and I don't have time to teach engineering online. There are many resources out there, some online and many in colleges all over the world.


I have an engineering degree. You sound like you have an engineering background also. What's the difference between concrete and steel in tensure? What does concrete do when shear is acted upon it? Why is concrete considered brittle and steel considered ductile?


A good place to start is on the difference in load bearing and material characteristics.


Load bearing, steel and concrete are comparable in compression. In tension, concrete has considerably less strength. Material characteristics, I just named a few.


Steel joints under high pressure (like the WTC) will give out where as steel reinforced is much stronger and some support structure will hold (thus concrete buildings often slump and/or topple during a failure).


So, are you saying that a steel bolt in shear is going to perform less than a concrete connection in shear? You do know that for a building to fall pancake style, the connections will shear?


Another area to look at is how they go up for an idea on how they would come down. Steel buildings are quite literally tens of thousands of bolted together pieces where as a concrete one is more like a solid stoney structure with a steel skeleton for minor flexibility. Once you get a fail point in a steel building, the pieces start to separate and you get many failures from over stress, torque, and deformation. Thus the building becomes a mix of free falling pieces more than a single thing that can topple.


I'm sorry but that does not make sense. Concrete in over stress, torque and deformation has less strength than steel. Concrete doesn't deform, it breaks...hence why it is considered brittle. Steel in deformation still has most of it's strength until ultimate failure. Torque (moment) is equal to a force multiplied by the arm distance. Steel performs better in torque than concrete. Over stress. Could you define what you mean by over stress? Is this during the collapse or before?



To your request for evidence, math, and proof, I offered you an enormous book of it, but if you dismiss it, I have nothing left to offer you.


You offered me an enormous book of political BS, not anything dealing with science, math and proof. Thanks for trying though.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Steel joints under high pressure (like the WTC) will give out where as steel reinforced is much stronger and some support structure will hold (thus concrete buildings often slump and/or topple during a failure).


Two problems.

First, this ignores the fire science behind steel. In this case there has been nothing before or since 9/11 to suggest any part of a steel structure will fail in the given fires. NIST even directly tested the trusses in 2 hour office fires (where the flames held steady against the same structure the entire time), and the energy release was large and rapid, something ridiculous like half a million watts. No failures, even without fireproofing. Sagging and major deformation even takes more time than what was available, let alone clean "breaks" and etc., which don't even seem to be possible with heating.

Second, this implies laws of thermodynamics are wrong, when you watch an actual collapse and note that the velocity at which floors are popping out is not changing over time (look into this for yourself).

This is equivalent to buying something with a $5 bill and getting the same $5 bill back as change. Something is wrong with critical assumptions in both cases, ie you're not really buying anything, or a building is not actually falling under its own weight. If a building was then the resistance from all the hundreds of tons of steel and concrete would decrease the velocity by taking energy away from the kinetic body (falling floors or whatever was driving it theoretically in your view), resisting the falling mass, more and more over time. We're talking 13 floors decimating 97 in WTC1 without so much as slowing, the whole way down. Have you ever studied acceleration in physics?

[edit on 24-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Here you go.
www.gpoaccess.gov...

It isn't perfect but it does offer a great deal of what you are asking for.

If you are interested in learning more, I suggest reading about steel frame skyscraper construction and steel frame demolition versus reinforced concrete demolition.

Afterwards, go back and watch videos of the WTC collapse and see if you'd still classify it as a symmetrical collapse.

Good luck with your info hunt.


Wow did you just link to the 9/11 commission report?? LOL! Please, point out the section of where it explains how WTC7 is able to defy the second law of thermodynamics. Oh wait, you can't.

That's like quickly taking out one leg of a 4 legged wooden table, and somehow having the table fall flat, instead of just leaning over. It doesn't work like that, because the other 3 legs are still there.


What I really want to know is, how much force does it take to break a 6inch thick steal beam like it supposedly did on WTC7 building? Debris from WTC 1 and 2 broke steal beams on WTC7? REALLY? I don't know about you, but I have a very hard time imagining the forces required to actually even bend one of those beams, let alone break it completely. If you go by NIST's sorry report, and believe a normal office fire can melt a 6inch steal beam, God help you.



Can you say COSMETIC?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Compare apples to apples, folks and not oranges to bald eagles.

If you're going to talk demolitions, you can't take "just any demolition." You have to take a structure with the same internal framework and of a similar shape and at least half the height.

Looking at pictures of old demolitions of brick and other types of buildings (and even of buildings of other shapes) tells you exactly nothing.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
If you're going to talk demolitions, you can't take "just any demolition." You have to take a structure with the same internal framework and of a similar shape and at least half the height.

Looking at pictures of old demolitions of brick and other types of buildings (and even of buildings of other shapes) tells you exactly nothing.


I can see that as being true...The problem would be finding images of the demolition of a structure such as WTC... I would think that to get an accurate assessment, you would have to get images of a demolition of a building the exact proportions as the WTC building. There is no such "bird" to my knowledge.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
We could build one.

And borrow a Boeing somewhere, maybe.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
We could build one.

And borrow a Boeing somewhere, maybe.


The isssue is whether it wasa controlled demolition,so, it would seem more prudent to conduct a controlled demolition on such a building.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
The isssue is whether it wasa controlled demolition,so, it would seem more prudent to conduct a controlled demolition on such a building.


Not at all, unless you have access to the same weaponry as the US military, or Mossad or etc.

Just build a tower replica, fill it with combustibles, set a row of floors on fire, let it burn itself out, and see if it falls straight down onto itself without slowing down.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Just build a tower replica, fill it with combustibles, set a row of floors on fire, let it burn itself out, and see if it falls straight down onto itself without slowing down


Hasn't that already been done in computer simulation? Also, where is that evidence of demolition? Have you given up and are now trying to go another way, or is this a fishing expedition Griff?


[edit on 24-1-2007 by esdad71]

[edit on 24-1-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Just build a tower replica, fill it with combustibles, set a row of floors on fire, let it burn itself out, and see if it falls straight down onto itself without slowing down


Hasn't that already been done in computer simulation?
I heard the variables in that simulation had to be tweaked beyond reason - to make the upper part topple. From what I know, the collapse itself has never been simulated.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Hasn't that already been done in computer simulation?


Yes, by NIST, and nothing failed. They even made the parameters more severe than would be realistic.


Also, where is that evidence of demolition?


You want pictures of the bombs, don't you? With somebody's signature saying that yes, that is a bomb that was in the WTC. Anything else is too much thinking for you apparently.

How does the upper part of a building smash into the lower part, and drive it straight to the ground, pulverizing it into dust the whole way, without slowing down? Go ahead and answer with something like the traditional "the much smaller section of falling building was just too damned heavy!" as if it made sense (last I checked those laws of physics don't change for skyscraper-sized objects, do they man?), and continue to ask us for evidence without even trying to back up half the BS you say whenever asked.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join