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.

 

China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 15
7
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Oy this is a mess. EMPs are formed by all nukes, suitcase nukes would make a few blocks worth of an EMP. EMPs are strong waves. They breach many common objects like x-rays. If there was a nuke in the WTC, it would have crashed near by choppers and turned off near by cameras. It would also fizzle the screens of further by cameras.

Now, yes, I do believe that a jet plane and fire did it. Could a squible explosion equal to a few grenades bring down the tower's main supports? would you propose that a jet linner explosion is weaker then a few grenades?

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Gorman91]




posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Oy this is a mess. EMPs are formed by all nukes, suitcase nukes would make a few blocks worth of an EMP. EMPs are strong waves. They breach many common objects like x-rays.


I think you are confusing an electromagnetic pulse with ionizing radiation. I believe current technology cannot make a suitcase bomb which can have a nuclear detonation with ionizing radiation (not in a practical sense). Maybe you mean a dirty suitcase bomb which is exploded with conventional explosives and some radiation (neutrons, gamma rays, alpha particles, electrons) but no EMP.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Gorman keeps talking about EMPs as if he doesn't understand how they work and thinks they're always massive, almost as if they retain constant size despite the size of the device that causes them.

From the figures I've seen, the yield always dwarves the magnitude of the EMP in whatever system of units. For example, a 3.5 megaton bomb is equivalent to 3,500,000 tons of explosives, while bombs of around this size only produce an EMP that peaks around 50,000 v/m. Don't get me wrong, 50,000 v/m will make a big mess, but it's tiny compared to the size of the bombs you have to detonate to get that effect (yields in the megatons). If you're talking about a more recently-developed nuclear reaction that fits into a building, you can't possibly be talking about the same 50,000 v/m, or anything close. By ratio, if linear, you're not even dealing with a full volt per meter from such a device. That's completely negligible. I'd like to see the curve, though, if there is one.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
actually, radiation contamination would continue for YEARS, not hours. I have posted information in previous pages regarding fallout.


Gorman reads about EMPs from big bombs and thinks they remain constant in magnitude regardless to the size of the nuclear reaction, and here you also seem to think that the amount of radiation has an uncompromising magnitude regardless of the bomb. You're wrong.

And half-lives vary depending on the isotope. The only way to detect for radiation is by these isotopes. The great majority of them have been through many half-lives by now, and again, this is of the ~1/10th of the debris that we theorize to have been irradiated in the first place.



Not only would ground zero workers exhibit radiation sickness


What did I just post? A quote from a civilian medical worker on 9/11 that said people at Ground Zero exhibited symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning? Is that not what I just posted?



but the people who arrived shortly after the impact, breathing the air, would be dead en masse.


Maybe if it were Hiroshima. Are you a nuclear engineer, or could you at least tell me anything about how the amount of radiation from a bomb relates to the size of the bomb itself? Do you know what the relationship there is?

[edit on 28-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
You're right, I don't know jack crap on EMPs, but at least I look it up. All I know is that there strong waves and the higher you are, the more they destroy. I would suspect that at least some form of fizzling would appear on cameras near by. all things continue to have some kind of an effect. I will point out I remember watching the tv on 9/11, and seeing a few cameras go off during the beginning of the collapse. A lot of channels went out also.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
These posts are getting boring....and keep going over and over and over and over again...same old story...
and from some on this thread.........they claim SO MUCH
and to KNOW so much (and while being drunk at the same time).

Like griff for example i read in another thread....he's
a structural engineer in an Architects office....then in this thread
he's a civil engineer............hey bud' you want' to back y'r claims????

what office you work at? or how about SOME proofe you got a degree?

Anyway the point i'm trying to make is ..........NO ONE KNOWS FOR
SURE the extent and impact of the events' that day and in reality
we never will.

And remember as I have posted many time on this topic....
HAVE spoken to MANY MANY engineers in STRUCTURAL design
and Architects and not ONE has strayed from the WHAT WE ALL SAW
with our own eyes that day.

Your Canadian freind Sven



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by svenglezz
 


To the mighty Sven:

Yes, these posts are repetitive. But that’s mainly because newbies show up on an ongoing basis without knowing that their questions have been answered before. But it doesn’t hurt to discuss things over and over again. Besides, it always helps to say things from as many different ‘angles’ as possible.

Nobody here needs to back anything. If whatever is being said makes sense then it will stand on its own. And, there ARE plenty of solid theories which explain the 9-11 events. Yes they’re based on indirect observations, but so are nearly all scientific presumptions. We can’t see atoms or molecules. Yet we are nearly certain — no one knows this for sure either —that they are a reality.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
Like griff for example i read in another thread....he's
a structural engineer in an Architects office....then in this thread
he's a civil engineer............hey bud' you want' to back y'r claims????


I have backed my claims plenty of times here. No need for more. Try the search button. I have even posted my transcripts.

As far as structural engineer vs. civil engineer, also try and ask your plethora of structural engineering friends what degree they own. I'll put down a million dollars it's a degree in CIVIL engineering.

I say civil engineer because when I say structural, everyone (like you) starts to try and discredit me. I'm just sick of it to be honest.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
first off' what's with the Mighty part????

Y'r the one with the Wizard complex
I know I'm a simple little gear


Anyway was trying to make a point....that if you are a structural engineer
you would know that what we say that day is what happened. Unless you got REAL proof then post it.......but other then that this topic has been discussed so MUCH with NO real proof' that what we ALL saw that day is what happened.

Been in the bussiness for 25 years and have spoke to many and not ONE
has said diff' to what WE ALL SAW THAT DAY.

As always y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
first off' what's with the Mighty part????
Y'r the one with the Wizard complex
I know I'm a simple little gear


Was confused until i re-read Wizard's post. I guess you're talking to him and not me?


Anyway was trying to make a point....that if you are a structural engineer
you would know that what we say that day is what happened.


I also don't get what you're saying here? Do you mean saw that day? Did you "see" what was happening on the inside?



Been in the bussiness for 25 years and have spoke to many and not ONE
has said diff' to what WE ALL SAW THAT DAY.


Point out any fallacies in my posts. Then if you can find any, run it by your structural friends and see if they poo-poo it. If so, I'll stand corrected. Until then, you are doing nothing but trying to discredit me. Find something wrong with what I post before you go down that road. Or else you will end up looking more ignorant than you already do.

[edit on 9/4/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
Been in the bussiness for 25 years


And yet you didn't know that Strutural engineers are actually Civil engineers? Maybe someone IS trying to be grand wizard here. Although, I don't think it is Wizard in the Woods nor I.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Shouldnt this building have collapsed?Afterall WTC 7 came crashing down due to fire.I guess this was some kind of "special" building.


(PrisonPlanet)-Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.

www.prisonplanet.com...


Anyone who has visited Shanghai's Pudong district will note that the World Financial building eerily resembles the twin towers in New York that were destroyed on 9/11, which is why the sight of it catching fire yesterday would have led many to immediately fear the imminent collapse of the structure.

www.prisonplanet.com...

Full story and picture here
www.prisonplanet.com...



Oddly enough, I'm sure this building didn't have 700 gallons of JP-8 as an accelerant.

I'm also pretty sure a 747 flying at 450 mph didn't slam into it causing a big-ass hole.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Boondoggle]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Originally posted by sensfan
I fail to see in the story where the structural integrity of the bldg in China was compromised by being struck by a high speed jumbo jet.

Apples and Oranges people....no use comparing the 2.


Thats funny because i dont recall any plane hitting building 7.


But I do recall over 100,000 tons of building material calpsing onto it.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boondoggle
But I do recall over 100,000 tons of building material calpsing onto it.


The debris that hit WTC7 was not over 1/5 the total mass of either tower. That figure is way off.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


Was it smashed into by a jet plane carrying enough fuel to cross the country??????



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Boondoggle
But I do recall over 100,000 tons of building material calpsing onto it.


The debris that hit WTC7 was not over 1/5 the total mass of either tower. That figure is way off.

Yeah? And? Stop playing the semantics game. Comparing these two buildings is ridiculous and if you have any sense you can see that.

edit: also, I'm baaaaack

[edit on 10-9-2007 by ccaihc]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join