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.

 

Where is the post 9/11 controlled demolition development?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Mainly for the supporters of the Official "story", but open to logical debate by all, regardless of opinion:

Why is there no advancements in controlled demolition resulting from the events of 9/11, or if there is, what are they?

On that day, we have 2 buildings that when "punctured" in a certain fashion, did an amazing job of falling to their own footprint - a highly ranked aim of controlled demolition. Considering the height of WTC1 and WTC2, this is a wonderous feat that deserves to be investigated fully, recreated in a scientific manner, and refined down to a perfect process, eliminating the need for hours upon hours of planning, explosives, dangerous work etc.

We also have a building, WTC7, that apparantly fell due to "office fires" (and took a whack from some WTC debris), again, completely eliminating the need for any controlled demolition company, or any charges, almost perfectly into it's own footprint.

So, I ask again. Why are we wasting our time and money with controlled demolition, when a large lump of rock and some paper fires (WTC7) can achieve the same result in less than 8 hours flat? And without needing any personnel?




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
You are kidding right?

If you call millions in damage and three additional collapsed buildings "in its own footprint" then..ok.
( WTC 7, WTC 3, St. Nicholas Church)

Then you have fiterman hall, now being taken down due to damage, WTC 4,5,6 having to be completely removed. 130 Cedar Street still uninhabitable, WFC 3 and Winter garden being extensively damaged along with the Verizon building, 90 West street, The Bankers Trust building...

In its own footprint.. pffbt.

All of this information is avalible if you just TRY to do some legitimate research, not just repeat the same old INCORRECT B.S. like a ..well..like a sheeple.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   
You seemed to have ducked my point somewhat.

I'm not kidding at all, far from it. WTC1 and WTC2 did make substantial damage outside of the footprint, but for a randomly aimed fuel-bomb did an amazing job of it compared to a CD.

The real gem is WTC7. I'd like you to show me what damage this building caused by itself when it came down. The video evidence is highly supportive of my claim that the office fires and lump of debris did an almost identical job as controlled demolition would have done. There is even the Dutch CD expert commenting that he was adamant it was a controlled demolition, if you are unable to see it with your own eyes.

Now, if it was not a controlled demolition.. Where's all the work being done on why we are wasting our time and money setting/placing charges etc, when we can just lob a lump of mass and light up some paper to achieve the same result in less time?

For the record, I have seen many controlled demolitions land outside of their footprints, for they cannot always be exact, hence my point that these "random" acts from 9/11 are more than worth pursuing for anyone involved in controlled demolitions.

P.S. You misquoted me somewhat, rather unsporting. WRT WTC1/2 I said "did an amazing job of falling to their own footprint", and WRT WTC7 I said "almost perfectly into it's own footprint". Not, "in its own footprint".

P.P.S. I find it amusing you label me a sheeple and suggest I research, whilst simultaneously repeating the same old INCORRECT B.S. and failing at reading comprehension.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Now that you have been called out on your INCORRECT claims...you move the goalposts. Typical.

The point is many buildings were EXTENSIVELY damaged. Some of those buildings were completely ruined. Others were closed FOR YEARS and needed MILLIONS of dollars to repair.

I could care less how you micro-managed your wording -- as if that makes in difference. You are just trying, and failing to save face.

You have a flawed premise that the ONLY way a building can fail is through controlled demotition. And you act like an cynical uninfomed brat that there might be any other cause for a catostrohic disaster to take place. Carefully ignoring conflicting evidence, and suggesting flying Boing 767's into buildings to "lessen the cost" of demolition is somehow a Good idea? Your are kidding RIGHT? sheeze!

But hey, that is your prerogative.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


How about you answer the topic, instead of trying to nitpick minor and irrelevant details?

There are no goalposts moved, but your useless bleating over details means I have to water things down and simplify them, so you actually see my point instead of trying to bring other things into the topic that aren't relevant.

Here, I'll make this dead easy for you.

In accordance with NIST's WTC7 report, why has there been no research or development on controlled demolition of buildings, when we clearly saw a large piece of debris and some paper fires bring down a steel structured building that day, in a much more cost and time efficient manner than is achieved using current controlled demolition practices?

Think you can manage answering that without resorting to your pathetic attempts to boost your online-ego? Or is that your only purpose here on ATS?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
In accordance with NIST's WTC7 report, why has there been no research or development on controlled demolition of buildings, when we clearly saw a large piece of debris and some paper fires bring down a steel structured building that day, in a much more cost and time efficient manner than is achieved using current controlled demolition practices?

Because it was not more cost efficient, it damaged nearby buildings and caused at least one to be unsalavagable.

Lets not forget that the collapse was entirely uncontrolled and unique to that structure. The point of controlled demolition is in the name.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Because it was not more cost efficient, it damaged nearby buildings and caused at least one to be unsalavagable.

Lets not forget that the collapse was entirely uncontrolled and unique to that structure. The point of controlled demolition is in the name.


What nearby buildings did WTC7 damage?

I don't recall seeing any exterior damage in particular caused directly by WTC7's collapse - I know there were no casualties at least.

On the basis of no damage to other buildings, it was much more cost efficient (bundles of paper and large chunk of a building, vs. personnel, charges, cables, trigger devices etc.) and much, much quicker.

If in fact WTC7 did cause some damage to other buildings as it went down, then as you rightly say this should not be seen as unordinary for an unplanned, uncontrolled, accidental collapse. However, when seeing the remarkable resemblence in how the tower fell, to that of a controlled demolition, this is the point at which you fund research and figure out how it could be made more efficient.

It's quite comical how we have appeared to reacted "Oh, how amazingly lucky was WTC7's collapse. One lump of matter and some paper fire, and almost the same result as a controlled demolition.", and then carried on like nothing actually happened!



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Forget about it adjay, I'm afraid it's a bit hard for some to simply read the main idea of a post. They get lost in details and end up insulting you out of frustration of not being able to understand.

It's not that hard to understand adjay's point. WTC 7 fell down as with a CD but without any explosive charge. Yet the way it fell down, at almost free fall speed, seems suspicious and if it really was this way, one jumps to the conclusion that by setting fire in some floors in a building, no aeroplanes needed, the whole shebang will collapse almost on its own footprint. How come? Why then other CD are so millimetrically planned after weeks? Instead, with WTC7, after Larry Silverstein spoke to the firemen, they just pulled it down in seconds. Where was all the preparation?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
What nearby buildings did WTC7 damage?

It caused enough damage to 30 [edit: might have said 23 before, apologies!] West Broadway to result in the building being demolished, you can find more information here: forums.randi.org...

It also damaged the adjacent Verizon building to the tune of over a billion dollars:
upload.wikimedia.org...


I don't recall seeing any exterior damage in particular caused directly by WTC7's collapse - I know there were no casualties at least.

You are correct that there were no casualties. This is because firefighters conducted a survey of the building earlier in the day and determined that it was significantly damaged, had uncontrolled fires and was creaking and moving. For this reason they cleared a zone around the building in case of its collapse.


If in fact WTC7 did cause some damage to other buildings as it went down, then as you rightly say this should not be seen as unordinary for an unplanned, uncontrolled, accidental collapse. However, when seeing the remarkable resemblence in how the tower fell, to that of a controlled demolition, this is the point at which you fund research and figure out how it could be made more efficient.

Well not really, buildings which are demolished by controlled demolition typically do not contain a significant fuel load as the occupiers have already removed their equipment. This would mean that the CD team would have to add fuel load to the building, it's a lot more work to add 25kg/m^2 than it is to add some relatively small charges. Lets not forget that the object of CD is to completely remove all ability to support load in a building, not just tip it over the critical limit.

Of course, this doesn't preclude some research, and hell I am no CD expert, so it may well be conducted, but the two approaches are radically different and it's unlikely that a hybrid method could be constructed. Linear Shaped Charges will cut steel no matter what temperature it is at, and their effects are a lot easier to predict than even controlled fires.


It's quite comical how we have appeared to reacted "Oh, how amazingly lucky was WTC7's collapse. One lump of matter and some paper fire, and almost the same result as a controlled demolition.", and then carried on like nothing actually happened!

"some paper fire" is a rather dubious way of putting it, you certainly would not want to be anywhere near said "paper fire" at any point and it was clearly powerful enough to break windows, this indicates quite significant temperatures.

Anyway hopefully I have shown you that in fact WTC7 did not collapse "in its footprint", and explained the basics of why the two methods would be hard to combine. I await your response.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
You are kidding right?

If you call millions in damage and three additional collapsed buildings "in its own footprint" then..ok.
( WTC 7, WTC 3, St. Nicholas Church)

Then you have fiterman hall, now being taken down due to damage, WTC 4,5,6 having to be completely removed. 130 Cedar Street still uninhabitable, WFC 3 and Winter garden being extensively damaged along with the Verizon building, 90 West street, The Bankers Trust building...

In its own footprint.. pffbt.

All of this information is avalible if you just TRY to do some legitimate research, not just repeat the same old INCORRECT B.S. like a ..well..like a sheeple.

a dose of your own medicine would do you good.

Ask yourself why at least one reporter from each network said it looked like a CD on 911 but on 912 and on never mentioned it again?

See how many other 45 story plus skyscraper demolitions you can find and look at the area of effect from them and then multiply it by 3 and see if the collateral damage is approximately equal.

Becasue what you are saying contains valid points, but with no frame of reference.


A little disambiguation never killed anyone.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Ask yourself why at least one reporter from each network said it looked like a CD on 911 but on 912 and on never mentioned it again?

Because it looked like a CD to people without much information.


See how many other 45 story plus skyscraper demolitions you can find and look at the area of effect from them and then multiply it by 3 and see if the collateral damage is approximately equal.

What's your point? WTC 1 and 2 caused gigantic amounts of damage, billions upon billions of damage. Controlled Demolitions should ideally cause $0 damage.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Controlled Demolitions should ideally cause $0 damage.


Are there any 110-story buildings in packed downtown Manhattan, for which safety was theoretically not an issue at all, whose demolitions you can compare to?

Only one (non-WTC) building that I know of had to be tore down after 9/11, and that was the Banker's Trust building. Everything else was ultimately ok. The BT suffered impact from debris comparable in size to what you see in videos heading toward WTC7, and it was later decided that BT was beyond repair and had to be deconstructed. Then in the middle of deconstruction, it caught fire for several hours on several floors. It blows my mind that it didn't just up and drive itself into the ground at free-fall during any of that.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Are there any 110-story buildings in packed downtown Manhattan, for which safety was theoretically not an issue at all, whose demolitions you can compare to?

No, nothing as large as even WTC7 has ever been demolished through Controlled Demolition. There are no comparable cases on either side, no similar plane crashes have occurred and no similar CDs have occurred. Whichever way you look at it, it was the first time in history.


Only one (non-WTC) building that I know of had to be tore down after 9/11, and that was the Banker's Trust building. Everything else was ultimately ok.

Well I've already given the example of 30 West Broadway. There's also WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, damage to the Verizon building, damage to 90 West Street, damage to the WFC complex, damage to 130 Cedar Street (adjacent to the Bankers Trust building)


The BT suffered impact from debris comparable in size to what you see in videos heading toward WTC7, and it was later decided that BT was beyond repair and had to be deconstructed. Then in the middle of deconstruction, it caught fire for several hours on several floors. It blows my mind that it didn't just up and drive itself into the ground at free-fall during any of that.

While your sarcasm is irrelevant, you're not actually far wrong in terms of debris impact.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
No, nothing as large as even WTC7 has ever been demolished through Controlled Demolition. There are no comparable cases on either side, no similar plane crashes have occurred and no similar CDs have occurred. Whichever way you look at it, it was the first time in history.


That was the only thing I was rhetorically trying to get at.

We're not really disagreement; this is atypical no matter where you come from.


Well I've already given the example of 30 West Broadway. There's also WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, damage to the Verizon building, damage to 90 West Street, damage to the WFC complex, damage to 130 Cedar Street (adjacent to the Bankers Trust building)


I said non-WTC and those other buildings are still standing. I don't know what 30 West Broadway is but there was also a small church that was destroyed, but it was about a 2-story concrete shack.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I said non-WTC and those other buildings are still standing. I don't know what 30 West Broadway is but there was also a small church that was destroyed, but it was about a 2-story concrete shack.


30 West Broadway was located the other side of WTC7 from the towers. It was (or is being) deconstructed as a result of 911, at least two of the others were also being checked extensively and essentially stripped back to the barebones to check for viability.

I don't see what point you're trying to make here, you can try and say that WTC7 shouldn't have collapse for genuine engineering reasons, but to just say "oh well no other building completely collapsed so WTC7 should not have" is not logical or rigorous. (please note: I'm not trying to ascribe this quote to you, simply giving it as an example)

I appreciate that WTC7s collapse certainly was unusual, and in fact it was so unusual we still have no positively verifiable failure mechanism. This doesn't lend any credence to controlled demolition theories though, as despite this NIST has managed to produce an impressive report which does match many of the failure criteria.

Many conspiracy theorists have pointed to "unanswered questions" as somehow casting suspicion on the "official story", but this is also not rigorous.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I don't see what point you're trying to make here


You were just saying demolitions should cause $0 in damage. You couldn't compare other demolitions to these even given that they are demolitions. We just agreed, what happened that day has never happened before either way.

I'm not even arguing about WTC7, but yes, I am convinced it was a demolition, thank you for noticing.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You were just saying demolitions should cause $0 in damage. You couldn't compare other demolitions to these even given that they are demolitions. We just agreed, what happened that day has never happened before either way.

True enough, but that doesn't mean you can use it as an argument, that just means neither of us have a good reference point and so the argument is moot.

With regards to WTC7, perhaps you could start a thread with what you feel is the strongest evidence. This has been tried at JREF but unfortunately has lead to only semantic bickering, part of the reason I mainly post here at the moment, looking for actual challenges



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
With regards to WTC7, perhaps you could start a thread with what you feel is the strongest evidence.


It wouldn't do you any good. If you can admit that "we still have no positively verifiable failure mechanism," then I can admit that I can't properly express my problem with this building's failure in words and numbers. It is not a problem I found one day while crunching numbers and something just didn't add up right. It was something that immediately struck me the first time I watched it fall that didn't sit right with me. That "something" never left me. Watching it fall, contrasting it in my head to any imaginable scenario of what must be going on inside of it, trying to imagine how quickly things must have been happening and even accelerating despite what must have been in the way, something "wasn't right." Those things mean something to me intuitively, and they are very important to me, and I have still not resolved them. Something is "not right" here. I come from an educational upbringing to where I have the self-confidence to be able to form my opinion based on what I see, and have no problem with that. I consider myself intelligent enough to know when I am making a big mistake. They put me in the "gifted" classes all the way up through middle school across three different states and etc., I always understood any of my subjects well enough when I put forth the required effort. I'm a computer electronics engineers major now, so I even understand mathematical functions. I don't feel the urge, which I really can't even understand, to cling so tightly to conventional scientific models (which are what? not even a year old yet?) so as to become what equates to a Christian Missionary on its behalf. If you feel satisfied with what you know, that is ok with me. Let me be misguided.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you feel satisfied with what you know, that is ok with me. Let me be misguided.

I cannot argue with someone who admits their problem is intuition rather than explicit evidence.

I don't think it's a strong argument, but I don't think you're trying to make it into a strong argument. For that reason I am fine with agreeing to disagree. Ironically (actually coincidentally) I will hopefully be doing an EE course soon enough


I have no 100% proof that WTC7 was not a controlled demolition, but I don't see anything hugely suspicious in its collapse, and am satisfied with the "official story" as far as the controlled demolition theories go.

So yeah, lets agree to disagree on this topic, unless we have facts to debate over, it's just opinion anyway.

Respect.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I cannot argue with someone who admits their problem


Problem?

On one hand you admit you only have theories and that they aren't even complete or verified. On the other hand, you speak as if I have already been proven wrong and now my opinion is a "problem." I'm confused.


their problem is intuition rather than explicit evidence.


“There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.” - Albert Einstein

“Mathematics as an expression of the human mind reflects the active will, the contemplative reason, and the desire for aesthetic perfection. Its basic elements are logic and intuition, analysis and construction, generality and individuality.” - Richard Courant

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.” - Albert Einstein



I don't think it's a strong argument


I wasn't trying to argue at all. I was saying, there is no point in trying. Nothing has satisfied me yet. You can't satisfy me without giving me an understanding of the situation that no one is yet known to possess. I am dis-satisfied on a deeper level than the number-crunching after the formulas and variables have been picked and chosen.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join