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.

 

Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Wow I warranted two separate replies to one post, I must be special...

For the building to collapse globally to the ground ALL the steel would have had to fail at the same time.


No, only the area affected by the crash would have to fail, the rest fail as building was collapsing.



The steel would have had to heat up uniformly and very quickly.


No it wouldn't, as stated above you only need the affect floors to fail


Even if the building was completely engulfed in fire it would still not be enough temperature, or time, to cause global failure. We now this from simple science and precedence from working with steel for a few years in similar situations (i.g. other buildings and machinery made from steel that's subjected to heat such as a stove or gas fire).


Jet fuel can burn somewhere around 1500degF that is hot enough to causes structural failure. Plus...
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction."



Yes steel will lose it's strength under extreme temperature but you obviously haven't really looked into how fires and steel work, and to put that claim into context.
For one the steel would act as a heat sink so all the heat would be spread along the length of steel thus cooling it. The fires were on just a few floors, what heated up the steel on the 90 odd floors bellow the impact point of the aircraft?


I think your over estimating the heat sinking. This is like saying a blow torch will not cut steel because the heat from the torch would spread. It doesn't happen, there's limits to how much and how fast the heat can spread.




The building was designed to carry 5x it's own weight, so a little math tells me if the steel lost half it's load carrying ability it would still hold 2.5x it's weight. But it would have been impossible for office fires on a few floors to cause 110 floors of steel to lose half it's strength, even with the jet fuel and damage. Jet fuel only burns at around 300dc in open air, hardly a high temperature. Office fires at max will burn around 800dc, and no open air fire is ever going burn at 100% efficiency, so temps were predictably a lot lower than that. Grey smoke turning black indicates a cooling fire, unless of course a different fuel was suddenly added to the mix (highly unlikely). Do me a favour go look what temps NIST found on the steel and then tell me if that's hot enough to cause failure.


A pervious post covered this.



In 1975 there was a fire on 6 floors that lasted for 6 hours, no global collapse, no condemning of the building due to column weakening...


A fire on one floor is a little different then major damage from a plane crash, and fires with jet fuel as an accelerant on many floors. There's no comparison.




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
becuase the fire, which was GOING to happen, MOST LIKELY would have damaged some or all of the ordinance packages. C4 (and most any other rdx based explosives) will burn, when they do their "bang" is much lower so the guys that would have theoretically planned this wouldnt be certain that their packages would cut the steel.


Ok, that's for C4. I'm not talking about C4. I'm talking about everything that could have been used, because chances are, if that's going to be a problem, a good engineer would have had the foresight to head the problem off by some means. And since I'm not hearing C4 charges going off in the videos, I'm assuming that there were none and your argument is completely pointless.


plus theres the chance that the wires/detcord hooked to the devices would have been damaged


And could not those chances be controlled? Simplify/modify the circuits near the floors to be impacted, and just try to avoid putting anything you need where it could be cut without having a back-up source available. Just running the wiring down through the core and then out under the floors with all of the networking cables and etc. would be enough to localize whatever damage may occur to only the parts of the building already destroyed by the aircraft impact, really, assuming of course that any cables were used at all. Every device could have had its own personal receiver, waiting for a very specific, hard-wired signal, for example.



but, its a matter of logistics.


And how are you qualified in that, especially applied to an organization of people you don't necessarily even know anything about?

[edit on 14-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read through this one.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ok, that's for C4. I'm not talking about C4. I'm talking about everything that could have been used, because chances are, if that's going to be a problem, a good engineer would have had the foresight to head the problem off by some means. And since I'm not hearing C4 charges going off in the videos, I'm assuming that there were none and your argument is completely pointless.

yeah, for C4...same goes for ANY rdx based ordinance. same goes for TnT. same goes for Dynamite to a lesser degree. ill tell you for fact they didnt use Anfo so thats out. so when the most likely choices for an ordinance package are ruled out in this situation you want to just hand wave and say "oh everything/anything/whatever"? im suprised honestly. youre so sure it was a CD that thats all the further you want to investigate the theory. sorry, but i need more specifics. i dont think its at all unreasonable either as you engineer types question nists theories cuz they dont make sense to you. well THIS is my area and until it makes sense to me im going to challenge it. sorry if that offends you somehow but thats how im wired.




And could not those chances be controlled?

certainly they could. all i was doing was trying to illustrate that it would be a challenge with no 100% gurantee of certainty. if youre plannign this op, wouldnt you want to make DAMN sure that you werent going to leave any evidence behind? never said it was IMPOSSIBLE, just that it would be risky at best. so IMHO it would be IMPROBABLE that they could account for EVERY contingency. most demo jobs you dont sweat those details as you dont really care that any knows you blew their building/bridge/road/whatever up.




but, its a matter of logistics.


And how are you qualified in that, especially applied to an organization of people you don't necessarily even know anything about?

i keep waiting for a "just kidding" on that. planning demo jobs, requisitioning ordinance, assigning teams, and setting up the packages woudlnt give me just a little idea of the logistics involved? but thats neither here nor there either. YOU should be able to understand simple logistics of an op like that. forget aquiring the ordiance or finding the people. pretend youre in charge. you got the guys, you got the ord, you roll up to the wtc towers and you cant see the challenge in placing just under 200 demo charges per floor, in the dark without using the elevators? (remember this was supposedly done during the powerdowns) it isnt rocket science on that one so honestly i think youre just taking a potshot at me for some reason. but its all good.
seriously, having spent a good portion of my adult life DOING the job i did, (which of course all you have to go on is my say so unless you want a mod to contact me for references which im happy to provide to them. hell, i know you well enough id almost be willing to give you a phone number to call and check out my credentials but thats not the point) you dont think that i MIGHT just have a slight clue as to whats involved? IF it was a USG inside job, the guys that did this were NOT that different from me, htye just probably wore a different color fuzzy felt hat than i did. NOW that being said, if it was some OTHER "super secret govt organization using equipment reverse engineered from aliens at area 51 made up of guys that no longer exist and move like cyber ninjas" well tehn youre absolutly correct and im not even remotly qualified.

Lastly, if you READ the post youre quoting me from, i AGREED that it could be done, covertly and it wouldnt have been an insurmountable challenge. where i said that there was a risk to the packages, i followed by saying that getting around that was as simple as going down a few floors so i guess overall i just have no clue why you seem to take exception to me not agreeing with you on the other matters.

EDIT: clarified a thought

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
yeah, for C4...same goes for ANY rdx based ordinance. same goes for TnT. same goes for Dynamite to a lesser degree.


All of those things come from a very, very narrow sub-field of chemistry, rapidly expanding gases by producing massive volumes of gas in very short amounts of time.

Now if you can take that little sub-field of chemistry, and expand it to all that is possible to us given all of physics, I would be more impressed. Otherwise there's not much use in you telling me conventional explosives didn't do it, especially when I already believe that.


youre so sure it was a CD that thats all the further you want to investigate the theory. sorry, but i need more specifics.


That's because you're a demo guy. I'm not. I don't need to prove what devices were used to you to prove a demolition, when I see the collapses and the best explanation anyone can come up with, is that a floor somehow gave way simultaneously and caused a domino-like reaction. If you believe that then more power to you. There's obviously much more to the issue than that, and it goes deep, but I'm not going to lay out every detail in every post and point out the physical behaviors and their implications as far as I understand them, and etc. My point to you now is that I am accepting of the idea that your training is completely irrelevant to what happened to those buildings, but they were still demolished. If that's beyond you then so be it. I'm pretty sure you agree, though, and I'm not sure what I'm really arguing with you about on this.



so IMHO it would be IMPROBABLE that they could account for EVERY contingency.


Obviously they did not have to. There are so many suspicious things about the collapses, but even if something minor was blatantly pointing to the obvious, you would ignore or dismiss it as the little detail that it is without having a fuller understanding of what it implies, just because you are biased that way. That is exactly what you would do, isn't it? It's what any of us would do, and we all do it. Seismic charts may be an example. WTC7's shows some bizarre information, but it's meaningless to you, isn't it? Some anomaly or mistake or misunderstanding or etc., not to really be considered.



i keep waiting for a "just kidding" on that. planning demo jobs, requisitioning ordinance, assigning teams, and setting up the packages woudlnt give me just a little idea of the logistics involved?


How would you know? You just assert yourself like this, but I don't buy it. How many people have done what you did in the military over the years? How many people have had the same kinds of training you've had, and know the same relevant things that you know? How "special" are you, in the grand scheme, is basically what I'm wondering. Because you would have to be pretty damned knowledgeable, and pretty damned "in" some pretty high security-level/scientifically advanced stuff, with connections to very influential people, before you would EVER be requisitioned for such an operation, I would imagine. It would obviously be much more involved than calculating an amount of explosives and sticking it somewhere, and considering all the limitations and special conditions that must have been satisfied, I really do have to wonder what makes you think your field would necessarily be relevant to any of this.


you got the guys, you got the ord, you roll up to the wtc towers and you cant see the challenge in placing just under 200 demo charges per floor, in the dark without using the elevators?


Ok, now you're going to have to prove it was done in the dark, that about 200 charges were used per floor (what kind of charges they were would help justify this), that the elevators weren't used, etc.

Actually, almost all of the core columns were accessible from shafts within the core, mostly elevator shafts. I wouldn't be surprised if excellent use was made of that fact.

Doing it in the dark would be suspicious. Why not out in the open as maintenance workers? Would you go up and get in their business, or give much more than a passing glance to what they were doing? Here's a better question: what makes you think any of this would have been done around unknowing people in the first place? Why can't you just cordon a little part of a floor off at a time, or how do you know anyone within a shaft would be visible to anyone outside anyway?

The 200 charges part I'm not even going to address, because you still haven't proved that conventional explosives would have been the preferred means in the first place. I can say they couldn't load the towers with 500,000 tons of gun powder, arbitrarily saying that that would be all that could take them down if they were demolished, but no one is going to take that garbage seriously as some ultimate rebuttal to demolition theories. And I don't take the claim seriously that C4 was conventionally placed on structural members just as it would be for a commercial demolition. That idea is completely stupid to me. It's stupid to you too, apparently, since you argue against it. Why do you keep bringing it up? Is it supposed to somehow represent what you think did happen to them? We'd all love to hear.



NOW that being said, if it was some OTHER "super secret govt organization using equipment reverse engineered from aliens at area 51 made up of guys that no longer exist and move like cyber ninjas" well tehn youre absolutly correct and im not even remotly qualified.


So do you actually know what those guys do at Area 51, since you were in the military? What about the secret service, or the Bilderbergers, or the Trilateral Commission or Council on Foreign Relations? You hang out with those people very often, have them inform you of all the dirty stuff they see on a casual whim? Because it sounds to me like the impression you got from your service, was that you're buddy-buddy with everybody involved with the military and intelligence agencies and etc., and you know everything anybody else in the military or etc. knows about blowing buildings up. Sometimes you say you can accept the possibility that more is out there, but you don't act like you really believe it.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
No, only the area affected by the crash would have to fail, the rest fail as building was collapsing.


Huh? So how do you explain the lack of resistance from undamaged columns, fasteners, welds? I still don't understand why you guys seem to think there would be no resistance?
You seem to be assuming once the collapse began it was inevitable it would globally collapse to the ground…;@@:
What cause the rest of the building to fail?



No it wouldn't, as stated above you only need the affect floors to fail


That's simply not true. You still have to explain the lack of resistance.



Jet fuel can burn somewhere around 1500degF that is hot enough to causes structural failure. Plus...
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction."


Not true, jet fuel burns at 260-315dc (500-599F) in open air. Jet fuel will only burn at its max temperature, 980dc (1796df) in a 100% efficient burn which will only happen in a controlled situation, such as a jet engine.
Thousands of tons of steel could not get uniformly hot enough to lose even half it's strength from office fires on a few floors, get real! Even if it did it would not collapse in the way it did, there would still be resistance. Steel when hot doesn't instantly decide to fail, it bends, warps etc… slowly as the temperature increases, we would have seen signs of this. Also steel would be RED hot at those temps you describe, we would have seen this.



I think your over estimating the heat sinking. This is like saying a blow torch will not cut steel because the heat from the torch would spread. It doesn't happen, there's limits to how much and how fast the heat can spread.


What? Steel will wick away the heat to the end of the piece of steel. A direct flame from a blowtorch, a controlled flame btw, is far different than an open air office fire.



A pervious post covered this.


And?


A fire on one floor is a little different then major damage from a plane crash, and fires with jet fuel as an accelerant on many floors. There's no comparison.


It was a fire on 6 floors and burned for 3 hours, do you read?
Of course there is, it was the same building burning so the same fuel was involved. If you think the jet fuel had a significant effect on the fire then you don’t know how fires work. Jet fuel burns a max of 315dc in open air, and burns very quickly. Not hot enough to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to fail.
You seem hung up on the jet fuel as an accelerant but that theory is juts not realistic.
As I have said it burns at 315dc max in open air, and most of the fuel was burned up in the initial impact fire-ball. What was left would have burned up very quickly and not really effected the fire overall temperature after the first few minutes.
You are just assuming, because jet fuel is used as an engine fuel, that it would burn efficiently at very high temperatures in an open fire, which is not true.

[edit on 14/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All of those things come from a very, very narrow sub-field of chemistry, rapidly expanding gases by producing massive volumes of gas in very short amounts of time.

yes and any release of that magnitude would leave signatures which i dont feel we've seen. but thats just me



Now if you can take that little sub-field of chemistry, and expand it to all that is possible to us given all of physics, I would be more impressed.

yeah not gonna happen i slept through chem and what i do know about chem im certainly not posting here as this isnt an online anarchists cookbook.


Otherwise there's not much use in you telling me conventional explosives didn't do it, especially when I already believe that.

well, theres a point we agree on. but while i was quoting you in the past few posts, youre not the only one on these boards and there are others who still think it was something akin to c4 and so im just sharing info for all i suppose


That's because you're a demo guy. I'm not. I don't need to prove what devices were used to you to prove a demolition,

no, but you ARE looking for a mechanism which makes sense to you and fills the blanks based on the engineering and physics. for you that blank is something someone put there ahead of time as far as i can tell yeah?


when I see the collapses and the best explanation anyone can come up with, is that a floor somehow gave way simultaneously and caused a domino-like reaction. If you believe that then more power to you. There's obviously much more to the issue than that, and it goes deep,

this i agree with i just personally dont feel like i have enough information to form any definite opinions about the specifics.


My point to you now is that I am accepting of the idea that your training is completely irrelevant to what happened to those buildings,

well, i respect that, and as far as my training being relevant to why they DID fall i agree with you. i have no bleedin idea why they did fall.

however, i feel my training is more than relevant to the discussion of why they DIDNT fall. maybe not to you and a few others as it seems you feel that something exotic was used and if this was in fact the case id agree with you there as well. but in the discussions about CD from a conventional standpoint i think my training and experience is more than sufficient for me to formulate and defend my opinions that conventional explosives were not used.


but they were still demolished. If that's beyond you then so be it. I'm pretty sure you agree, though, and I'm not sure what I'm really arguing with you about on this.

its the specifics we disagree on bro, im just not willing to make a leap of faith that it was done intentionally by our govt using hypothetical means. so i go with what i know and what i know just wont let me get to that point. maybe thats becuase i am missing some vital piece of evidence thats just out there past my reach. who knows.




There are so many suspicious things about the collapses, but even if something minor was blatantly pointing to the obvious, you would ignore or dismiss it as the little detail that it is without having a fuller understanding of what it implies, just because you are biased that way. That is exactly what you would do, isn't it?

short answer: no
longer answer: im a bit disappointed that you feel im so closed minded. id have thought you knew i was open minded enough to consider pretty much anythign, and i have considered most of it. theres just too many blanks left empty for me to just fill them in with arbitrary things.


Seismic charts may be an example. WTC7's shows some bizarre information, but it's meaningless to you, isn't it? Some anomaly or mistake or misunderstanding or etc., not to really be considered.

no, youre totally wrong. but the fact remains that at THIS moment, its just that, an anomaly. once again i dont have enough data to fill that blank in and i wont just arbitrarily insert "random explosive device"




How would you know? You just assert yourself like this, but I don't buy it. How many people have done what you did in the military over the years? How many people have had the same kinds of training you've had, and know the same relevant things that you know?

how would i know? because ive done it. same way youd know if the discussions were pertaining to anything youve ever done. how many people know what i know? an aweful lot actually, and how many of them think the towers were a cd? none that ive talked to but ive not talked to all of them so when i find one that DOES think its a cd, we'll compare notes and if he/she saw something i missed then believe me ill be back here saying i was wrong and explaining why.

how many of you would say that? bsb, you at least id like to think would be willing to say that.


How "special" are you, in the grand scheme, is basically what I'm wondering.

special? not in the least. jerry's kids are special. im just a former grunt waiting for god.


Because you would have to be pretty damned knowledgeable, and pretty damned "in" some pretty high security-level/scientifically advanced stuff, with connections to very influential people, before you would EVER be requisitioned for such an operation, I would imagine.

yeah, you'd imagine. and im at a loss as to where ive ever said i was really special or "in the know". what ive said in the past was that i was a grunt. i worked with a lot of spec ops guys. theyve never shared any data on "super secret stuff" that was relevant to the wtc events. so either they didnt know or they werent talking.



It would obviously be much more involved than calculating an amount of explosives and sticking it somewhere, and considering all the limitations and special conditions that must have been satisfied, I really do have to wonder what makes you think your field would necessarily be relevant to any of this.

because in the end its not the guys planning this that were in those elevator shafts placing charges. the guys doing that probably didnt know jackall more than i do really.



Ok, now you're going to have to prove it was done in the dark, that about 200 charges were used per floor (what kind of charges they were would help justify this), that the elevators weren't used, etc.

well, the popular theory is that it was done during a power down of the building, so, likely it was done by lamps and flashlights.

200 charges? well, just under i think i said but, 47 columns, each one has 4 sides that need to be cut...so it was either that or they did a brute cut which would have taken significantly more ordinance...


Actually, almost all of the core columns were accessible from shafts within the core, mostly elevator shafts. I wouldn't be surprised if excellent use was made of that fact.

which is kinda why i mentioned it when i was AGREEING WITH YOU that it could be done in the first place


Doing it in the dark would be suspicious. Why not out in the open as maintenance workers? Would you go up and get in their business, or give much more than a passing glance to what they were doing? Here's a better question: what makes you think any of this would have been done around unknowing people in the first place? Why can't you just cordon a little part of a floor off at a time, or how do you know anyone within a shaft would be visible to anyone outside anyway?

excellent points. i was speculating based on popular theories as to how it was done. nothing more. your way above would be much easier on everyone.

continued...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


part 2:


The 200 charges part I'm not even going to address, because you still haven't proved that conventional explosives would have been the preferred means in the first place.

yes but since we should really be trying to base our debates on fact and not speculation, why not base the theories on things we KNOW exist and KNOW what their characteristics are?



And I don't take the claim seriously that C4 was conventionally placed on structural members just as it would be for a commercial demolition. That idea is completely stupid to me. It's stupid to you too, apparently, since you argue against it. Why do you keep bringing it up? Is it supposed to somehow represent what you think did happen to them? We'd all love to hear.

actually all of my theories are based on linear shaped charges. which are filled with rdx. C4 is 91%rdx and 9% plasticizers. so, thats why you always see me put (or other rdx based charges) when i type that. C4 is just a good analog for discussion purposes as its the closest thing to what would likely have been used, from a conventional standpoint that is. that last part of the quote i dont understand though...what do i think happened to what exactly?



So do you actually know what those guys do at Area 51, since you were in the military? What about the secret service, or the Bilderbergers, or the Trilateral Commission or Council on Foreign Relations? You hang out with those people very often, have them inform you of all the dirty stuff they see on a casual whim? Because it sounds to me like the impression you got from your service, was that you're buddy-buddy with everybody involved with the military and intelligence agencies and etc., and you know everything anybody else in the military or etc. knows about blowing buildings up. Sometimes you say you can accept the possibility that more is out there, but you don't act like you really believe it.


well i apologize if i have come off as such a pretentious prick but i dont think i have. matter of fact i think ive many times said i was just a grunt who happened to talk and work with a lot of spec ops guys but most of these guys were also grunts. didnt talk to the officers a whole lot.

so really im not sure where ANY of that last quote came from and it seems like youre just being argumentative intentionally.

in the end, let me ask you this. IF what ive posted about demo is true and you all can verify it with almost no real work, and IF ive never claimed any super secret knowledge of super secret stuff, does it matter who i claim to be? seriously? if you can go through and find where im just flat out wrong about any of the demo info ive posted (stuff ive said was opinion doesnt count) then ill retract it all.

But, if my data holds water then isnt it just the least bit possible that who i claim to be may be accurate? i mean how often does your engineering schooling get challenged? probably not often because what you post is generally pretty sound. or griff? or anyone else here for that matter?

so ya'll have a great day. one attack on my character in a day is enough for me.
Peace



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
you ARE looking for a mechanism which makes sense to you and fills the blanks based on the engineering and physics. for you that blank is something someone put there ahead of time as far as i can tell yeah?


When they put it there wouldn't be so much as important as the fact that whatever *it* is can apparently make multiple connections all around a floor fail simultaneously, instantaneously. But that's definitely along my lines of thinking at the moment, yes.


in the discussions about CD from a conventional standpoint i think my training and experience is more than sufficient for me to formulate and defend my opinions that conventional explosives were not used.


And I would agree with that opinion of course.


its the specifics we disagree on bro


What specifics? I don't have any idea what specific devices would have been used, I only know why anything naturally-evolving from a weakened structure and gravity would be much sloppier and have a slower onset.


im just not willing to make a leap of faith that it was done intentionally by our govt using hypothetical means. so i go with what i know and what i know just wont let me get to that point.


So you don't know the specific mechanism was that failed the buildings, and you're 'not willing to make a leap of faith'?

Essentially you're agnostic, then, and don't believe any specific theory as to what happened to the buildings?

I don't see how you can possibly form an opinion as to what did happen to them and not be completely hypocritical on this point. Assuming it could happen on its own without having any idea how is the exact same kind of hypothetical 'leap of faith', if that is what you believe.


no, youre totally wrong. but the fact remains that at THIS moment, its just that, an anomaly.


What is "an anomaly," exactly? What does that mean in terms of all of these discussions?


once again i dont have enough data to fill that blank in and i wont just arbitrarily insert "random explosive device"


But you're perfectly happy to arbitrarily insert "random (yet beautifully symmetrical) failure from impacts and fires"?


how would i know? because ive done it.


You've covertly rigged a building for demolition in which there were special conditions that had to be met as to the sounds it produced, the visuals, the sequence of charges, etc.?



yeah, you'd imagine. and im at a loss as to where ive ever said i was really special or "in the know". what ive said in the past was that i was a grunt. i worked with a lot of spec ops guys. theyve never shared any data on "super secret stuff" that was relevant to the wtc events. so either they didnt know or they werent talking.


You say you're at a loss as to where you've suggested you would know any other technologies or methods beyond HEs. Then you turn right around and say you've worked with special ops guys before. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to imply? I'd imagine they probably don't talk much about anything they do.


because in the end its not the guys planning this that were in those elevator shafts placing charges. the guys doing that probably didnt know jackall more than i do really.


And so they wouldn't really be able to help even if they knew they were planting charges, and even if they knew that's what they were doing and that the towers were going to be blown, I'd think. At least, I wouldn't tell them any more than they needed to know, I don't know who would.


so ya'll have a great day. one attack on my character in a day is enough for me.
Peace


Just for the record, the only reason I got so personal in the last post is because of the way your background has seeped into the discussion. I still try to express what I think objectively and I'll freely admit that I don't put a whole lot of effort into avoiding sounding like an ass, but it doesn't mean that I'm trying to belittle anything you've done or dislike you in any way as a person. Really I don't feel much of anything when I post and it throws me off to see people taking things personally. I certainly wouldn't mind blowing things up for a living, or any of the education it brings with it. I'm only posting about the relationship between that kind of experience, and what I know of the destructions of the twin towers. Nothing else, and certainly nothing personal. I still appreciate your postings here.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
well, it would seem that theres been a horrible miscommunication between myself and a member here who i have a great respect for. so, im going to TRY to clear this up so we're back on the same page and discussing the issues and not taking backhanded jabs at each other (or rather so that i can stop taking backhanded jabs at perceived slights which may not actually exist)


Originally posted by bsbray11
When they put it there wouldn't be so much as important as the fact that whatever *it* is can apparently make multiple connections all around a floor fail simultaneously, instantaneously. But that's definitely along my lines of thinking at the moment, yes.

ok, and i can respect that opinion. all i was trying to say is that i prefer to stick to what i know. what you describe doesnt sound like anything i know so im hard pressed to agree with you on this one.




its the specifics we disagree on bro


What specifics? I don't have any idea what specific devices would have been used,

well here we can agree. i dont have clue one what could have been used. either.

I only know why anything naturally-evolving from a weakened structure and gravity would be much sloppier and have a slower onset.

but the thing is that i DONT know that as i dont feel we (any of us) have nearly enough information to make that determination. but im sure ill cover that more later in this post...



im just not willing to make a leap of faith that it was done intentionally by our govt using hypothetical means. so i go with what i know and what i know just wont let me get to that point.


So you don't know the specific mechanism was that failed the buildings, and you're 'not willing to make a leap of faith'?

exactly. i see so many people who seem quite knowledgable try to work it out as to how the building fell and they end up with blanks in their theories. many of these same people have never set off anything bigger than a firecracker and fill these blanks in with explosives. i cant do that anymore than i can sit here and tell you that it was simply fires and gravity. if you asked me to make a choice out of hand, i would pick fires and gravity but thats only if i had to choose RIGHT NOW, with ONLY the information we have available. i wouldnt be able to explain teh specifics of HOW it happened but when i have 2 choices and i am pretty sure one is wrong, ill go with the other one even if i dont know its right. make sense?


Essentially you're agnostic, then, and don't believe any specific theory as to what happened to the buildings?

yes. thats correct as i dont feel theres enough data available to the general public for me to make an informed choice of theories. when im not put on the spot and asked to pick a theory, ill just sit and say "i have no bleedin idea why they fell"

but, thats also why i keep reading these forums and discussing these theories. i hold out hope that maybe one of you brilliant engineer types will be able to come up with a theory that holds water. even if it was one involving a controlled demo, its just that id scrutinize a CD theory harder than most as thats something id be able to hold an intelligent conversation on.


I don't see how you can possibly form an opinion as to what did happen to them and not be completely hypocritical on this point. Assuming it could happen on its own without having any idea how is the exact same kind of hypothetical 'leap of faith', if that is what you believe.
which is why i dont have my own educated theory as to why they fell. im simply not qualified and we simply do NOT have all the information we need.



no, youre totally wrong. but the fact remains that at THIS moment, its just that, an anomaly.


What is "an anomaly," exactly? What does that mean in terms of all of these discussions?
well its certainly more relevant in the thread i started on the seizmic data, but in that case an anomaly is a blip on a seizmograph that has no overt cause. some fill that blank in with explosives. i want more data. in that example we do NOT know how much damage was done to wtc7. no one can tell me we do, eyewitness accounts vary. theres no photo or video record of the damage available to us. we just dont know. but, theres also no overt signs of any type of explosion of the magnitude it would take to drop that building and register on the seizmographs. (though admittedly i could be wrong as i simply havnt finished my own research into that few second time frame yet. if im wrong ill admit it)



But you're perfectly happy to arbitrarily insert "random (yet beautifully symmetrical) failure from impacts and fires"?

no, im really not. and we both know that




how would i know? because ive done it.


You've covertly rigged a building for demolition in which there were special conditions that had to be met as to the sounds it produced, the visuals, the sequence of charges, etc.?

no, this is one area i think we totally miscommunicated. i was talking about the logistics of any demo mission, not a covert one in an occupied building. most of the logistics wont change, only the actual mission parameters would.




You say you're at a loss as to where you've suggested you would know any other technologies or methods beyond HEs. Then you turn right around and say you've worked with special ops guys before. Maybe I'm confused as to what you're trying to imply? I'd imagine they probably don't talk much about anything they do.

ok, this one i KNOW is a source of miscommunication. if you recall some posts i made months ago i laid out what i did and what i know. recently i posted somewhere that IF the govt was testing new stuff that it would be a guy similar to what i did that had to field test it and that while they may not talk to the general public, they will often talk to other people in the same field, particularly if they have similar security clearances. i went on to say that id never even heard rumors of anything new that would fit the bill for the WTC's. unless im mistook, i also then said something to the effect of "but that doesnt mean anything specific" which i guess i meant to be that i would have had a better chance of hearing rumors of such things than the avg joe but that just becuase i havnt doesnt mean much. if im wrong or contridicting myself then please accept my apologies now, that was never my intent.

i wont say that i think youre implying that im being dishonest, but for the record, that was NOT my intent.


And so they wouldn't really be able to help even if they knew they were planting charges, and even if they knew that's what they were doing and that the towers were going to be blown, I'd think. At least, I wouldn't tell them any more than they needed to know, I don't know who would.
but if they were using conventional demo charges not even forrest gump could be placing those and not knwo what he was doing, particularly once the news came out that the towers fell.

NO ONE is that stupid are they? not if they make it into the kind of group that would have been placing said charges anyway.


so ya'll have a great day. one attack on my character in a day is enough for me.
Peace



Just for the record, the only reason I got so personal in the last post is because of the way your background has seeped into the discussion.

well, maybe thats my fault for not making my long posts even longer by being clearer as to what i was saying. i can accept thats a possibility. but in my opinion, and i mean this with all due respect, i think you may have just read more into what i was saying than was there. is that possible?


I still try to express what I think objectively and I'll freely admit that I don't put a whole lot of effort into avoiding sounding like an ass, but it doesn't mean that I'm trying to belittle anything you've done or dislike you in any way as a person. Really I don't feel much of anything when I post and it throws me off to see people taking things personally. I certainly wouldn't mind blowing things up for a living, or any of the education it brings with it. I'm only posting about the relationship between that kind of experience, and what I know of the destructions of the twin towers. Nothing else, and certainly nothing personal. I still appreciate your postings here.


eh, in the end its all good. im usually more thick skinned and maybe i was reading too much into what you posted. i honestly hope that this post cleared things up a bit, if not u2u me and ill explain. im afraid any more and this thread will turn into the bsb/damo show and we really dont want that lol.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
dont forget the slamming a jet into the building bit
seems that was a pretty key part of the equation that day...


OK so how do you explain building 7 then? No jet plane, no jet fuel...

But anyway, sry but the planes impact did not have a major effect on the buildings collapse, and trying to say it plus the fire did doesn't work either.
If the planes impact had cause enough damage to cause global collapse it would have done so almost immediately. Also the planes impact would still not account for the lack of resistance from undamaged building structure. It also doesn't explain the sudden and complete global failure.

So instead of just hand waving and screaming 'it was the planes and the fire' you first still have to explain the lack of resistance. Because planes, fires, or Allah's thumb the lower structure would still create massive resistance if the building tried to collapse on itself as the official story claims.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Erm, the top several floors. Didn't you see the video? The top floors fell in one big chunk, with a portion of the central column inside it, it bent over and then fell down inside the structure. …Tonnes of it….


Hey no need to get sarky mate, first sign of a frustrated debater, better lay off awhile.
Go take a cold shower…
First off you have to understand how the towers were constructed. The central core was made up basically in 3 lengths welded together at the maintenance floors. So the central core went from the floor to the roof in one mass. The floor pans hung off the sides of the columns, they didn't sit on top of the columns.
You are making a wild assumption in saying the top section ‘fell’ on the lower structure, it didn’t. For that to happen you would have to sever ALL columns AT THE SAME TIME. Impossible from a-symmetrical damage and office fires. And obviously not the case with WTC2 as it the top was at a 23deg angle.
So I ask again what rubble collapsed the central core?



The top floors didn't just turn into powder…. The very act of the central column weakening and being pulled to one side by the top floors slumping over is going to seriously compromise it's strength. Then the top floors, with the top central coloumn inside it, falls right onto the rest of the central column.


Didn't turn into powder? Did you watch the videos? Here's a still for you...



Looks like a lot of powder to me…unless they hadn’t dusted for awhile..


How could the floors put force on the columns when the official stories claim is the floors fell down on top of each other because the spandrel plates failed? The floors, according to the official story, became detached from the central core. So I ask again how did the floors pull the core down?
It’s obvious to me that the top ‘chunk’ didn’t bend any columns but the columns were severed, by perhaps thermate or some other destructive device. The central column structure wouldn’t bend like that, take a look…



Look at that hard, put it into context, and then tell me you really believe what you’re saying?


People say the central core was built to hold 5 times the weight. But what do they mean by that?...


Yes each floor would be designed to carry 5x it's handling capacity. It's called a safety factor. But having said that you are still under the impression the floors fell on floors, they didn't. WTC 2 tilt proves this, look at the top it's leaning at 23deg and undergoing angular momentum. It's physically impossible for it to suddenly become 'too heavy' for the building to hold it up, and even if it did the top would not act like a piston destroying the building, it would continue it's angular momentum and fall off the side taking the path of least resistance. You’re talking about an object’ the top ‘chunk’, falling on a much more massive object, the lower undamaged floors, and expecting the more massive object to not resist the smaller mass. That’s just silly. That is basic high school physics, I don't understand why you guys don't get this?



That's the problem with you guys. You see "built to carry 5 times the weight" and you don't really think that through to the actual circumstance that occured.


You guys? Look you are not reading the posts if you think it just comes down to "built to carry 5 times the weight", you are really not getting this are you? It comes down to basic real world physics. You need to think through to the actual circumstances that occurred, but first brush up on some basic physics.


Conspiracy theory is BUILT on these misunderstandings?

What’s that supposed to mean? You do know what a conspiracy theory is right?


[edit on 14/12/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
OK so how do you explain building 7 then? No jet plane, no jet fuel...

lol same way i do buildings 1&2. no bleedin idea. you can quote me on that.

but, hypothetically speaking...you know that 20 ton chunk that got thrown what 500 ft? what if one of those had hit building 7 at around the 30th floor on a parabolic trajectory? what you suppose would have happened? you wouldnt think it hit the side of the building and fell to the ground without damaging the building do you?

cuz thats the thing about 7. we have NO idea how badly it was damaged. eyewitnesses report a wide array of things from barely a scratch to 20 story gash in the side of it. we dont know. if you have a good picture of the damage to 7 id love to see it becuase it could easily be the one thign that sways my own opinions of a lot of things that day.




So instead of just hand waving and screaming 'it was the planes and the fire' you first still have to explain the lack of resistance. Because planes, fires, or Allah's thumb the lower structure would still create massive resistance if the building tried to collapse on itself as the official story claims.


but wouldnt it be a grand thing if someone other than the "clunkity clunk" chick could explain just how much resistance there SHOULD have been?

cuz without that key bit of information it sure seems like theres a lot of hand waving and screaming "oh it was explosives" or "oh it was thermite" without any hard proof. ill admit there sure is some interesting circumstantial evidence...but i see everyone focusing on that as proof without holding it to the same standard of evidence that is expected of anything that disagrees with it.

of course i may just be moody today too. who knows. if i am just tell me i am and ill go away quietly until i feel better lol.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus
reply to post by albie
 


Good theory, and one I've heard often. I'd like a sound, scientific, explanation to all of this.

Again, I don't see this possibility of this NOT being a CD, but if you can explain how many levels fell upon themselves with a "domino" effect, then you have my attention. However, I still don't see conclusive evidence of a CD (the videos don't offer that "flash" effect on EACH floor), but to insinuate that this was a natural collapse is naive to say the least.

So I guess I'm mixed up.

A CD has ALOT of explosives, we didnt see those on 9/11. I Think thermite could be a suspect, but that is almost too obvious for the govmnt to produce. Its so simple, but even thermite couldn't have offered such a perfect blast.

The only debunkers left are those with the "jertfuel" burning theory. Continue to debunk this simple fact, and you will get noticed.


Nobody could see what was going on inside that cloud of smoke and dust. We can only go by what the structural engineers say.

Any such discussion should be done by them, or by us solely using their quotes.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by albie
Consider how tall the building is. Consider how little support that spine would have on the upper sections.

I see no problem with that falling.


Problem is.....it wouldn't fall straight down into itself. See the difference?

BTW, I am a structural engineer.


That does NOT mean that what I say should just be taken as fact. Please do your own research and come to conclusions on your own.


Why wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by albie
Erm, the top several floors. Didn't you see the video? The top floors fell in one big chunk, with a portion of the central column inside it, it bent over and then fell down inside the structure. …Tonnes of it….


Hey no need to get sarky mate, first sign of a frustrated debater, better lay off awhile.
Go take a cold shower…
First off you have to understand how the towers were constructed. The central core was made up basically in 3 lengths welded together at the maintenance floors. So the central core went from the floor to the roof in one mass. The floor pans hung off the sides of the columns, they didn't sit on top of the columns.
You are making a wild assumption in saying the top section ‘fell’ on the lower structure, it didn’t. For that to happen you would have to sever ALL columns AT THE SAME TIME. Impossible from a-symmetrical damage and office fires. And obviously not the case with WTC2 as it the top was at a 23deg angle.
So I ask again what rubble collapsed the central core?



The top floors didn't just turn into powder…. The very act of the central column weakening and being pulled to one side by the top floors slumping over is going to seriously compromise it's strength. Then the top floors, with the top central coloumn inside it, falls right onto the rest of the central column.


Didn't turn into powder? Did you watch the videos? Here's a still for you...



Looks like a lot of powder to me…unless they hadn’t dusted for awhile..


How could the floors put force on the columns when the official stories claim is the floors fell down on top of each other because the spandrel plates failed? The floors, according to the official story, became detached from the central core. So I ask again how did the floors pull the core down?
It’s obvious to me that the top ‘chunk’ didn’t bend any columns but the columns were severed, by perhaps thermate or some other destructive device. The central column structure wouldn’t bend like that, take a look…



Look at that hard, put it into context, and then tell me you really believe what you’re saying?


People say the central core was built to hold 5 times the weight. But what do they mean by that?...


Yes each floor would be designed to carry 5x it's handling capacity. It's called a safety factor. But having said that you are still under the impression the floors fell on floors, they didn't. WTC 2 tilt proves this, look at the top it's leaning at 23deg and undergoing angular momentum. It's physically impossible for it to suddenly become 'too heavy' for the building to hold it up, and even if it did the top would not act like a piston destroying the building, it would continue it's angular momentum and fall off the side taking the path of least resistance. You’re talking about an object’ the top ‘chunk’, falling on a much more massive object, the lower undamaged floors, and expecting the more massive object to not resist the smaller mass. That’s just silly. That is basic high school physics, I don't understand why you guys don't get this?



That's the problem with you guys. You see "built to carry 5 times the weight" and you don't really think that through to the actual circumstance that occured.


You guys? Look you are not reading the posts if you think it just comes down to "built to carry 5 times the weight", you are really not getting this are you? It comes down to basic real world physics. You need to think through to the actual circumstances that occurred, but first brush up on some basic physics.


Conspiracy theory is BUILT on these misunderstandings?

What’s that supposed to mean? You do know what a conspiracy theory is right?


[edit on 14/12/2007 by ANOK]


Why not get sarky with someone who is asking a stupid question?

The top floor block hinges over and falls into the building.

the hinge is buckled by forces it is not designed to deal with. a force that bends rather than applies downward pressure. As the block lops over it is bending and pulling the metal upwards, pulling on bolts etc. Snap. The building then has nothing to stop it falling inwards. Don't forget that the floors beneath the severing were also weakened. They provided little support. But there is resistance that gives away more suddenly than the initial hinging over of the top floors. It's reasonable that there was a sudden collapse than speeds up and gives more force to the dropping segment of floors. This could have happened once or twice, even thrice.

All the time giving the mass more energy.

Before any resistance is powerless to an exponential gathering of force and weight.

In my opinion, as a laymen, that it's that sudden giving way of lower, weakened floors that provided the power for all the building to go.

Dumping the block of top floors onto an undamaged floor may well have done no damage.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Why wouldn't it?


Sry I'm not Griff but here's my humble take on it...resistance. Do you understand what we mean by that? Do you understand that thousands of tons of construction steel that was structurally sound, had NO damage, just gave way for a mass a quarter its size? How do you explain that? How does a mass that has angular momentum (do you know what that is?) suddenly give up it's angular momentum and instantly gain the energy to crush a larger mass than itself? Can you really picture that in your head?

How was the resistance overcome? I’m going to try to help you understand why that is an important question to be answered before people waste time arguing over irrelevant points…


Newtons First Law of motion…
If no net force acts on a particle, then it is possible to select a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames, observed from which the particle moves without any change in velocity. This law is often simplified into the sentence "An object will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force".


That last simplified sentence is what is relevant to the collapses. For WTC 2 the top section or ‘chunk’ of building was undergoing ‘angular momentum’ and leaning at about 23deg. According to Newtons 1st law it should have continued its velocity and according to the laws of angular momentum…


the angular momentum of an object rotating about some reference point is the measure of the extent to which the object will continue to rotate about that point unless acted upon by an external torque


…it should have continued to rotate about its pivot point. Unless it was ‘acted upon by a unbalanced external force, or torque’.

What you’re trying to say is the top itself was that ‘unbalance external force’

Note the word 'external', in other words not the object in motion, i.e. not the top ‘chunk’.

So what was that ‘unbalance external force’?

You’re saying the building couldn’t hold the top any longer, how could it not? There was no damage to the building bellow the impact points and certainly not down to the ground level. But regardless, if the building couldn’t hold the top ‘chunk’ any longer it should have still continued it’s momentum as I have explained, and you can easily check for yourself. The top should have continued it momentum and fell off the side, perhaps taking some of the weakened building at the pivot point. (But in reality the top should not have tilted at all, what severed the central columns?)
Watch the video, the top section ‘chunk’ stops tilting and almost straightens back up.
The only way for that to happen is if the lower structure and pivot point of the top ‘chunk’ gave way independently and faster than the tops angular momentum.
How did that happen? It blows your crushing hypothesis out of Allahs rear (praise Allah!). You can’t have it both ways, and it’s obvious from video what way it went…

Jokes aside really think about this, it’s just basic physics, couldn’t get any simpler…

None of the official theory makes sense when all the damage and weakened structure was pretty much confined to the top ‘chunk’, how was that supposed to have had the energy to crush the undamaged sections of the building. That even makes no sense because even if Allah had grabbed that top section, lifted it up in the air, praise Allah, and dropped it back down it still wouldn’t have globally crushed the building with no resistance and slowing of the collapse…

“An object will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force

In this case the lower undamaged building was the ‘external unbalanced force’ and should have slowed the collapse if the top ‘chunk’ was simply crushing the lower structure by the pull of gravity alone. Even if it was damaged, and in a raging inferno.

The only way I can see the building possibly coming down as it did is if all the supports bellow the collapse wave were taken out first….It’s the only way to explain the lack of resistance and quick collapse times (free-fall or not). But that’s just my opinion, based on these few facts…


Third Law
Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. This law is often simplified into the sentence "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".


‘Every action has an equal and opposite reaction’, in other words when two objects collide the resultant force is equal to both objects, the weaker object will lose regardless of which one was moving. This shows why the plane crashes severed columns hypothesis-is is very questionable. Aluminum is not going to sever steel columns. Think about it…

So it wasn’t the planes, it wasn’t the fires, it wasn’t the planes plus the fires, it wasn’t Allahs sweet love, praise Allah! So what does that leave? Hmmmmm.

Resistance baby! How do you explain it?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
""Damocles : Because in the end its not the guys planning this that were in those elevator shafts placing charges. the guys doing that probably didn't know jack all more than i do really.""

For sure the contractors of the installers of power lines to charges, without picturing those charges in the blueprints, would have had a simple task to tell the installer guys that they were upgrading f.ex. a gps service, or a switchboard service or any other complicated diagram for electrical connectivity. And it would have been placed in the towers years ago, so that on 9/11 even the installers wouldn't have a clue what exactly they had installed so long ago, since nobody ever told them the fact that explosives were on the receiving end of their circuits. Even the charges could have been hidden in casings which looked not suspicious.
However, I expect the charging gang to have been in the know.

Btw, Damocles, that was a simple and feel-good remark of you : "just a grunt, waiting for god".
I'm in the same waiting room, just weren't a grunt, more a deep field, new boundaries player at times.
We could be having differences about our perception of that entity "god", but the end effect will be the same, the next generation will have to fill in the blanks, probably.

Lack of self-consciousness and repair of conscience takes too much time to overcome for too many people around us.

[edit on 15/12/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


there are 3 ways to cut steel using conventional explosives.

you put a bomb in a central area and its blast radius brute forces everything around it and that takes a very large charge

you can put a bomb right next to each column you want cut and that also takes a large charge but not as large as a single one. but, those all add up.

you can wrap the column in shaped charges. each of these is relativly small but does require whoever is placing them to physically access each side of the column with a charge. again, while small the yeild adds up.

so, when you want to try to stay as covert as possible you'd use the LSC's IMO. but, i just dont buy that the guys putting them there didnt know what they were doing. thats just a leap of faith im not personally willing to take just yet.

now if anyone wants to speculate that they werent conventional charges. feel free. outside my area and i prefer to discuss what we know and have data on personally.

oh and the waiting for god bit, unless medical science comes up with something fast, i wont be waiting as long as others, but ive got hope



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The top chunk of floors had leant over and now one side of the building is carrying it. An unnatural load carried unnaturally. It wasn't resting on undamaged steel. a plane had just collided into it. All manner of damage will have occured throughout the structure. Who knows how weakened it was.

So you have a cube with it's edge cutting into the structure. It's like two men carrying a bed up stairs. When tipped the man underneath gets it all.

Damaged steel, supporting a great weight at a very small place. It didn't carry on tipping because it crushed the beams like an axe. And kept on going down, like an axe.




top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join