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.

 

To 9-11 Debunkers

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   


Here's the link:11-settembre.blogspot.com. If you will notice in the first picture you posted, there is slag on top of the debris around the column that has been cut. Why would there be slag on the collapse debris if the column was cut before the collapse?

It's not my explanation, but it sounds reasonable to me.



EXCELLENT!!!! awesome work BOONE. The piece of steel here was soooo much thicker then even the core columns too.

QUOTE by HOTHsnake1

There are also idiots out there that beilieve in fairies, gargoyles, and that Hitler was a great guy.

And 9-11 conspiracy theories.

See where pointless bantering gets you.



I am quickly loosing my patience with this site. Now I know I don't have much of a chance convincing people who come to a 9-11 conspiracy theory page in the first place. But you should be nice to your opposition, OHH no wait you all like sitting around stroking your own egos for figuring out the grand plot of the worlds most elite. Anytime someone comes onto the forum to try and educate you guys you just sit there call them names, but never make a point. These forums don't get much exposure, in fact CT forums are the only holes you guys have to not be laughed and ridiculed in. I could easily be convincing many other people, who don't jump to conclusions, elsewhere.




[edit on 4-9-2007 by teebigins]




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I finally found what I needed to prove my point. This is almost exactly what i have been trying to say the whole time but stated by an engineer.

In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800◦ C. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast. At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation (i.e., creep—an increase of deformation under sustained load). This leads to creep buckling of columns (e.g., Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2). Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The
vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right), and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube (stage 5, at left). The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the
way down (stage 5).
Source:www-math.mit.edu...

note how he cites his sources, its not like he is just pulling all this stuff out of his ass like Conspiracy theorists. But lemme guess the whole scientific community is defacto gov agents that were payed off. And you guys wonder why you don't get much TV coverage because its always the same line: "he's working for the man, she's brainwashed, they are stupid sheep" .

[edit on 4-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   


To understand the situation more clearly, I acquired photographs taken by Joel Meyerowitz, the only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero.


Hmmm... The only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero? There seemed to be a lot of this going on. No one seemed to be allowed in to inspect the evidence, and not because it was too dangerous.




I have verified that in Meyerowitz's panoramic views, taken very shortly after the collapses from many locations at Ground Zero, there are absolutely no columns which bear the markings of straight or diagonal thermal cuts, contrary to the claims of the supporters of alternative theories.


Really? Where are the pictures?

Once again debunkers offer an alternative explanation, but provide no proof and barely any evidence to back up their theories. Part of investigating a matter is putting together the puzzle. Things on their own may not stand, but when considered with the preponderance of the evidence, suddenly are very important. Debunkers spend all of their time finding what they consider to be alternative explanations for isolated evidence, but they offer nothing to prove their own theories other than "the government said it, respect my authoritay!"




I am quickly loosing my patience with this site. Now I know I don't have much of a chance convincing people who come to a 9-11 conspiracy theory page in the first place. But you should be nice to your opposition, OHH no wait you all like sitting around stroking your own egos for figuring out the grand plot of the worlds most elite.


Your hypocrisy is laughable. You were the one labeling everyone on here "conspiracy theorists", and in your arrogance, presuming to tell me that I was paranoid. I simply responded to your looking down your nose at (ad hominem) "conspiracy theorists", especially when you clearly lacked a basic understanding of the world around you, and a lack of knowledge where it concerns history. I was being nice, trust me.

Again, your MIT guy does not explain how a 110 story steel structure could experience catasrophic failure across the entire structure at nearly the same moment due to some weakened beams and trusses at the top of the structure. Again, I could buy this explanation for a partial collapse within the impact crater, but not what we saw on 9-11, which was total pulverization of a giant concrete steel structure from bottom to top to bottom. It still doesn't explain the complete failure of the entire length of the core, especially the some 98 percent of it that could not have been weakened by fire. It is the same failure of the NIST report, which also begins with the assumption of impact and fire, but fails to explain the full collapse of the Twin Towers. We've been through this already and still I have yet to recieve an answer.

As for Wal-mart and the economy, a giant trust is never beneficial to an economy, for it quells competition and thus keeps prices higher than they would be in a free market. Who's to say what prices might be without Wal-mart monopolizing the market? Wal-mart, a retailer, makes nothing, produces nothing, and yet cheapens everyone elses labor and production, and thus lowers the standard of living for all, while increasing our tax burden because a large number of Wal-mart employees are on some sort of government assistance. Also, Wal-mart has single handedly destroyed our manufacturing base by forcing most of its suppliers to turn Chinese. We can thank Wally World for the "made in China" epidemic and the huge trade deficit that Americans are forced to bare, contributing toward the devaluing of the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets. Much of the current market instability that precipitated a near collapse a few weeks ago can be laid at Wal-mart's door step. Not to mention that our enemy (China) now pretty much owns us thanks to our good friend and traitor Wally and fam...

[edit on 4-9-2007 by HothSnake1]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by HothSnake1
Hmmm... The only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero?

So now the photographer is in on it? What about the news crews and the first responders with cameras? Are they in on it too?


Really? Where are the pictures?

Of what? The leftover detonation cords and remains of explosives? I don't know, you tell me.


Once again debunkers offer an alternative explanation, but provide no proof and barely any evidence to back up their theories. Part of investigating a matter is putting together the puzzle. Things on their own may not stand, but when considered with the preponderance of the evidence, suddenly are very important. Debunkers spend all of their time finding what they consider to be alternative explanations for isolated evidence, but they offer nothing to prove their own theories other than "the government said it, respect my authoritay!"


Replace debunkers with conspiracy believers and let me know if your standards still stand.

You never did answer my question of which sources I can cite. Will you get back to me on that please?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by HothSnake1

Hmmm... The only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero? There seemed to be a lot of this going on. No one seemed to be allowed in to inspect the evidence, and not because it was too dangerous.

Well not that they knew it at the time, but people are reporting asbestos damage to their lungs. Good thing access was limited. Also they didn't want people crawling all over the scraps because it was a CRIME SCENE and it shouldn't be contaminated. If you weren't so wrapped up in your CT you would realize that.




Really? Where are the pictures?

where are your pictures that show straight/diagnol cuts? I want time stamps on those too.



Debunkers spend all of their time finding what they consider to be alternative explanations for isolated evidence, but they offer nothing to prove their own theories other than "the government said it, respect my authoritay!"


I have had the same story the whole time, even getting my source from non GOV institution, and it has explained everything it's not my fault you don't attempt to understand it.




Again, your MIT guy does not explain how a 110 story steel structure could experience catasrophic failure across the entire structure at nearly the same moment due to some weakened beams and trusses at the top of the structure.


YES my MIT guy does.

---BEGIN EXPLANATION:
"the weight of the upper part of the structure( you agree with upper portion collapse) above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated."
---END EXPLANATION

If you don't want to believe it that's fine, but don't tell me that no one is giving you an answer.


how a 110 story steel structure could experience catasrophic failure across the entire structure at nearly the same moment

another excerpt
"This (the initial fall of upper portion) causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right), and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors"

Buckles may have happened at same time but MIT man even says either accompanied by OR quickly followed by. What do you mean at the same time? The whole building only took seconds to come down. Should it have taken hours to come down? Even controlled demo takes seconds.

If you have reading comp problems that's one thing, but I think you just didn't read my post. So you won't bother to hear official story yet you know its untrue. right......

As for wal-mart, I'm not going to pretend I know very much about economics and you know everything about everything so i'll just say it,"you win" on the wally world thing.



[edit on 4-9-2007 by teebigins]

[edit on 4-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Hi guys,
I'm Henry62, 11-settembre.blogspot.com... is my personal blog.
I write from Italy.

I confirm you that Joel Meyerowitz was the only professional photographer officially present at Ground Zero.

He published a wonderful book "Aftermath" with a selection of photos:

www.phaidon.com...

www.life.com...

All his 9/11 photos are in the New York City Museum.

I cannot publish Meyerowitz's photos on my blog because there is a copyright problem.

If you want, have a look at the English section on my blog:

11-settembre.blogspot.com...

I think you could find some interesting posts.

Best wishes and thank you,
Enrico (Henry62)

[edit on 5-9-2007 by Henry62]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
Source:www-math.mit.edu...



In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding
800ŽC.


First assumption wrong. NIST found no such thing. So, since their first assumption is incorrect, would that make their entire paper incorrect? Yes.

Not to mention his freefall of an entire tower block with no resistance to come up with the energy. I wonder if he knows that buckled columns still give resistance? Assumption number 2 wrong.

Shall I continue? Starting with the wrong assumptions will lead you down the wrong path. I can't blame them though, look at the date, they didn't have the information that we have today. I wonder if their story would change though in light of it?


its always the same line: "he's working for the man, she's brainwashed, they are stupid sheep" .


No it's "poor guys have to come up with pseudo science to prove an already predetermined conclusion". That's not how it's suppossed to work.

[edit on 9/5/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 9/5/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   


So now the photographer is in on it? What about the news crews and the first responders with cameras? Are they in on it too?


Man, you're becoming paranoid Boone... You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

You see, that's the problem. Access was so limited, and our supreme reliance is almost exclusively upon the government that no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt anything, but a lot of speculation and hearsay. There should have been a full investigation and full disclosure of the facts, instead of politicizing (every governments favorite so-called commission) the whole issue. You have to admit that either the government wants to perpetuate this conspiracy or it is real. And you can't say that it was because of danger, because as you admit, there was asbestos in the air and our government was telling everyone that it wouldn't hurt them. It was almost like they were trying to kill as many people as possible.



Of what? The leftover detonation cords and remains of explosives? I don't know, you tell me.


No, some of the left over fairy dust that makes giant steel skyscrapers explode all by themselves.



Replace debunkers with conspiracy believers and let me know if your standards still stand.


Yep... They still stand.. I still demand to know the truth of what happened that day and not just some explanation that might have occurred in the remotest reccesses of my butt when monkies were flying out of it.



You never did answer my question of which sources I can cite. Will you get back to me on that please?


You are entitled to use whatever sources that you please, but your heavy reliance on government sources shows a weakness. You, or someone, denounced me for linking to a prisonplanet article (I was waiting for someone to bring it up). Alex Jones may have his sensationalist problems, but you can't throw the baby out with the bath water, can you? I find him more right than wrong. And he usually gets his info. from the same sources that you were begging me to use: CBS, NBC, CNN, Reuters, the AP, etc.



Good thing access was limited. Also they didn't want people crawling all over the scraps


Good thing the government was telling everyone that asbestos wouldn't hurt them, contributing to the death toll on that day. It reminds me of the time that the government was telling everyone that trans fat was good for you. It seems that their goal was to keep everyone away from the evidence, but let them breath as much asbestos dust as possible to incease the carnage.



where are your pictures that show straight/diagnol cuts? I want time stamps on those too.


You've seen them... They could be demolition markings or they could be cut afterwards. I think that the preponderance of the evidence is in line with demolitions.



"the weight of the upper part of the structure( you agree with upper portion collapse) above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated."


There seem to be a lot of assumptions here and pure speculation, but little to really go on that is tanglible. This is nothing more than the pancake theory, which I thought we dispelled a while ago. Assuming that the floor above were weakened enough to fail, what amount of potential energy released into kinetic energy could cause the chain reaction described here?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   


No it's "poor guys have to come up with pseudo science to prove an already predetermined conclusion". That's not how it's suppossed to work.


You hit the nail on the head Griff. It is a favorite propaganda ploy utilized by the government and its black ops intelligence apparatus. Get enough pseudo scientists to confuse the issue with their faulty assumptions and the general populace will go away scratching their heads: "well, he must know what he's talking about... He's a scientist from such and such institute." That's why our laws are written in legalese... No one can decipher the crap unless they have a lawyer's key code, thus perpetuating the fraud. The powers that be prefer the sheeple dumb and ignorant.



Fetzer characterizes Dr. Wood, who has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science, as the leading expert on technical aspects of the destruction of the World Trade Center. "There are experts in many areas of science and of engineering studying 9/11," he explained, "but she has degrees that are centrally focused on critical areas in which competence is required to begin to understand what happened on 9/11. No one else in the 9/11 community comes close to her level of expertise."


I'm quoting her again because you ignored her the first time. I think that she is imminently more qualified than anyone else to address these issues.



Her complaint, technically, Request for Correction, like the others, asserts that the basic integrity of NIST's report, called NCSTAR 1, is lacking because, by its own admission, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers: "The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." This means that the NIST report does not actually include the collapse behavior of the towers after the conditions for their initiation were realized, which NIST refers to as "the probable collapse sequence."

"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn't even reach the point at which a 'collapse' of any kind would be 'initiated.' The situation is quite remarkable."




Buckles may have happened at same time but MIT man even says either accompanied by OR quickly followed by. What do you mean at the same time? The whole building only took seconds to come down. Should it have taken hours to come down? Even controlled demo takes seconds.


Exactly, which is why your pancake theory just doesn't hold water. Assuming all of the things that you assume (a lot) it would still take far longer and would look far different than what we observed on 9-11. Commonsense tells me this, and I don't have to work up a computer model for you.



If you don't want to believe it that's fine, but don't tell me that no one is giving you an answer.


You have still failed to answer my specific question, and yes it hinges on timing: How did two skyscrapers explode in an instant in the same location at nearly the same time? Your pancake theory just doesn't answer this question at all. It explains a small buckling of a few floors based on several assumptions being correct, perhaps, and it is a huge stretch, causing a chain reaction (which we did not see with our eyes on 9-11,) but it does not explain instaneous catastrophic failure. So really, you and the government have worked out a model for some fantasy event.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   



In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding
800ŽC.


First assumption wrong. NIST found no such thing. So, since their first assumption is incorrect, would that make their entire paper incorrect? Yes.


ACTUAL QUOTE FROM NIST PAGE:
"the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns"

source:wtc.nist.gov...

I am convinced you are a pathological liar. Get you facts f&^#in straight before you come on here and spout your lies.

Assumption 1 correct!


Not to mention his freefall of an entire tower block with no resistance to come up with the energy. I wonder if he knows that buckled columns still give resistance? Assumption number 2 wrong.

Prove the buckling columns gave enough resistance to stop the free fall?
You can't you just say whatever you have too in order to win an argument with little regard for facts.


Shall I continue?

Well considering you never started, yes please.

HOTHsnakes1 quotes:

Assuming that the floor above were weakened enough to fail, what amount of potential energy released into kinetic energy could cause the chain reaction described here?

I don't have a clue EXACTLY how much KE was there. Neither do you, all I'm trying to show is that this theory is the more logical, as corroborated by my MIT source (non gov, as you like it), and that you have NO theory on how it should have collapsed yet you know it shouldn't have collapsed as MIT man/gov sources say it should have.


I'm quoting her again because you ignored her the first time. I think that she is imminently more qualified than anyone else to address these issues.

HAve you actually seen this lady?? Watch her totally make a fool of herself in an interview with a physicist, who repeatedly catches her in lies, and attempts to fool the layman.
video.google.com...
Notice how she repeatedly says "numbers, who needs numbers, Just look at pictures... yea real scientific" She even changes her story mid interview when caught in lies.

She is a liberal wacko with a huge political agenda, and no sci community respect/support. Dr.fetzer (the guy who dug this nut job up is a philosophy prof, not exactly qualified.)


Exactly, which is why your pancake theory just doesn't hold water. Assuming all of the things that you assume (a lot) it would still take far longer and would look far different than what we observed on 9-11. Commonsense tells me this, and I don't have to work up a computer model for you.

HOW hoth argues.
exactly,(repeat same argument)...Never actually making a new counter argument. what I say. Commonsense is all you need to analyze the collapse of a 100 story building wow you must be using Dr. wood math.


You have still failed to answer my specific question, and yes it hinges on timing: How did two skyscrapers explode in an instant in the same location at nearly the same time?


skyscrapers EXPLODED at same time? You are wacked outta the head dude.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
ACTUAL QUOTE FROM NIST PAGE:
"the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns"

source:wtc.nist.gov...


That's a nice quote of the fire temperature. Let's see what NIST has to say about the actual temperatures of columns using metallographic analysis.


Finally, in the several columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence that the steel exceeded 625 C, based on calibrations in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.


I had to re-type that because I can't copy the pdf. Here's the source:

wtc.nist.gov... page 174/184


I am convinced you are a pathological liar. Get you facts f&^#in straight before you come on here and spout your lies.


Hmmm. I guess I do have my facts correct?


Assumption 1 correct!


Nope.



Prove the buckling columns gave enough resistance to stop the free fall?


I don't have to. The fact that buckled columns give resistance makes the MIT guys analysis moot. They assume that there is no resistance. Whatever the resistance was, it would cause their calculations to be incorrect (and higher than reality).


You can't you just say whatever you have too in order to win an argument with little regard for facts.


I don't think I'm the one not looking at facts my friend.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
wow. another official story defender being rude and demeaning.
what's a poor conspiracy researcher to do?

BWAHAHAHA!!

tactics of belittlement and derision are used by people with WEAK arguments.

"pathological liar"? holy jump to conclusions, batman, get the anti-character assassination spray!
evidence proves the towers were blown. however, this particular truth can be easily ignored by the massive cognitive dissonance which it creates.

"impossible" is one of the first things to pop up in the mind. "improbable" follows close on it's heals. >>> "unlikely". >>> "possible". >>> "probable, considering motive and risk vs. reward". >>> "proven by TONS of circumstantial evidence".

i have seen MANY flashes of bright white light going off in the towers in several different videos.
watch, "911, the explosive reality" if you'd like to see them.


part one doesn't seem to want to work right now, so here's a link to part two.



you can get the whole video by searching the title on google, and then choosing from one of many places to download it from. (i ended my sentence with 'from'. an english no-no. sorry.)

here a link for that...911, the explosive reality google search


edit to add, here's the entire two hour movie on googlevideo...

Google Video Link


[edit on 5-9-2007 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   


Q: Weren't the Twin Towers poorly constructed?
Answer:

No one has had the ability to prove that the towers were poorly constructed. Yet our major media has suggested, in TV programs and printed articles, that (1) the buildings were poorly constructed; (2) the structural steel used in their frames was defective; (3) the fireproofing of this steel was inadequate.

In fact, the buildings were "over-engineered." This means that each floor could bear many times its weight, and the endo- (inside) and exo- (outside) steel skeletons actually constituted two frames, not just one. The core (inside frame) was composed of 47 steel columns made of 4-inch-thick steel at the base (go to a construction site and ask to see an I-beam for an example of what structural steel is like). The exterior frame was made of 236 columns, plus four corner columns.

Kevin Ryan (Google his articles) of Underwriters' Laboratories, the global testing giant that certified the WTC steel decades ago, has exposed UL's strange acceptance of the decree that the structural steel failed, even though not a single one of the test models failed. Ryan drew attention to this while at UL, wondering why his company was willing to put its reputation in question. He was fired immediately.

The New York Times reported that when the planes hit the towers, the impact knocked the asbestos fireproofing off the structural steel, and the fires that ensued attacked unprotected steel. This caused certain floors to fail, and the falling floors brought down the floors beneath them, resulting in a pancaking of the entire tower. Twice!

In fact, the towers' tremendous strength explains how they continued to stand after the airplanes plowed into them. They would have stood for many more years, with their gaping holes, if no repairs were conducted. Instead, they came down in approximately 10 seconds, which suggests that something other than the plane impacts was involved. (See "Jet Fuel" FAQ for more info on the fires.) source


I've read a feeble explanation for the visable demolition squibs seen throughout the structure during the collapse as air compression due to pancaking floors, but if this were the case then you would find the squibs just below the collapse wave. What do we see in the video evidence? Squibs several hundred feet below the collapse wave.

Each Tower was constructed of three multistory skyscrapers stacked on top of each other. If you look at a picture of the Towers, you will notice two dark bands around the towers. These are called sky lobby bands, which were bands of extra reenforcement where the skylobbies were connected. If you watch the video of the collapse, you will notice extra large squibs jutting from these bands, .i.e., these bands were blown out far ahead the collapse wave. Just what you'd expect to see from a controlled demolition and not a pancake collapse.



Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.

Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700degrees Fahrenheit. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560 degrees. The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.


Video Source This video says it all..



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 





skyscrapers EXPLODED at same time? You are wacked outta the head dude.


And he claims that we are mean to him?


Yes, that's what we saw on 9-11. Two giant skyscrapers reduced to a pile of white dust in ten seconds, plus a 47 story command bunker brought down into its own footprint in six seconds. Can you explain that without the promo for I-Hop?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   


HOW hoth argues.


You're funny.... You're the one claiming to have the same argument throughout the whole thread, which according to you means that the rest of us are inconsistant? You contradict yourself so often that it is difficult to understand let alone counter.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
[Quote]
That's a nice quote of the fire temperature. Let's see what NIST has to say about the actual temperatures of columns using metallographic analysis.


Finally, in the several columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence that the steel exceeded 625 C, based on calibrations in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.


What is your point? The analysis was made in 2001 all relevant data was yet to be compiled, this is his prediction of events . His objective was to determine mode of failure. Steel still loses strength at 625 C. since any gov sources wouldn't be taken seriously here I have to work with what i'm given. Your whole case hinges on a number being wrong by 28% 6 years ago. Should i go through all the real holes in a controlled demo or focused energy beam or holographic plane theory.



Assumption 1 correct!

Still




I don't have to. The fact that buckled columns give resistance makes the MIT guys analysis moot. They assume that there is no resistance. Whatever the resistance was, it would cause their calculations to be incorrect (and higher than reality).


It's not that you don't have to it's that you simply cant.

He never assumes no resistance, you assume he assumes no resistance. What he actually says is that the columns lose their load carrying capacity. Doesn't mean no resistance. MIT guy is talking to a scientific audience, he assumes that people understand that if there is motion then clearly the resisting forces of buckled columns was not enough to hold weight of building. IE CAN"T CARRY LOAD. have you taken mechanics ever?


I don't think I'm the one not looking at facts my friend.

Not only do I look at facts I correctly interpret them as well.

[Billybob Quote

evidence proves the towers were blown. however, this particular truth can be easily ignored by the massive cognitive dissonance which it creates

What evidence? The evidence is ignored because it's isolated and weak (ametuer youtube video anylsis, shoddy liberal art professor testimony, lack of true expert testimony). If, for example, you have 10 pieces of evidence 8 pointing one way and only 2 point the other then of course your going to pick the theory with more evidence and ignore the others. Thats not called coverup its called common sense.

Flahes of light could be anything, perhaps you can give me a min/sec to goto.

HOTHsnake1's turn:

I've read a feeble explanation for the visable demolition squibs seen throughout the structure during the collapse as air compression due to pancaking floors, but if this were the case then you would find the squibs just below the collapse wave. What do we see in the video evidence? Squibs several hundred feet below the collapse wave.

How do you figure that? air will escape through path of least resistance, if buckling happened relatively same time then pressure would increase at the same time (though not necessarily evenly) on all levels. glass panes blowing out doesn't prove it was controlled demo not even close.




You're funny.... You're the one claiming to have the same argument throughout the whole thread, which according to you means that the rest of us are inconsistant? You contradict yourself so often that it is difficult to understand let alone counter.

My story has never changed. I may have stated number slightly wrong or other small things, but my story has always been Plane hits building>>weakens steel>>building falls. I have obviously learnt new things along the way but nothing that changes my theory.

You on the other hand quote Dr. Judy Wood, yet she doesn't even believe in your controlled demo theory she is a concentrated energy beam person. You just saw a qualified phd and realized that she is one of the few out there not supporting with official story so you jumped all over it.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by teebigins]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
911.....nevermind



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by teebigins
 

that shows how the top of the building failed, it doesent show how the structure underneath failed.

i agree that they showed some math, but i quit reading the report after the 10th time they failed to cite a source.

if i handed in a paper with 10 missing calculations even at community college im quite sure i would be the laughing stock.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
He never assumes no resistance, you assume he assumes no resistance.


Show me where he includes the resistance of the buckling columns.


What he actually says is that the columns lose their load carrying capacity. Doesn't mean no resistance.


No it doesn't. But then he goes on to assume a freefall speed (which means no resistance). Again, show me in his calculations where he includes resistance from buckling columns.


MIT guy is talking to a scientific audience, he assumes that people understand that if there is motion then clearly the resisting forces of buckled columns was not enough to hold weight of building. IE CAN"T CARRY LOAD.


NO!!!!!! I'm sick of having to explain this to you. He assumes that since there is motion, there is no resistance and calculates the kinetic energy from a freefall of the building cap falling one story. This would not happen unless Allah took away the columns on one floor. Buckling or not. Plain and simple.


have you taken mechanics ever?


I know I'm going to regret saying this but, yes, since I'm a civil (structural) engineer, it was part of my schooling. Can I ask what degree you hold?


Not only do I look at facts I correctly interpret them as well.


Sure had me fooled.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Henry62
 


Welcome to ATS Henry62 (Enrico).

I really enjoy your blog. Thank you for your efforts.




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join