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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 17
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



The external columns near the tops of the towers were box members, roughly 14" x 14," fabricated from 1/4 " steel.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
There are NOT going to be any insults to other members, their wives, or anyone else for that matter.

That is a fact

Semper



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


*Snip*

You really want to know? I am an ex US Navy jet mechanic NEC 6418, Gulf War vet. I have a two year degree in engineering principles (City & Guilds London). I am a certified engineering drafter. I have extensive experience in engineering and mechanics. Enough to understand basic physics and its applications.

I do not work because I am disabled from my service to this country, your country I'm English.

Satisfied esdad? Now how about your experiences eh? What makes you more qualified to say I'm wrong in my understanding of basic physics?

I've obviously hit a spot with you guys, you know I've been saying the same thing for 5 years on ATS now Esdad, and not one of you has been able to refute me. Now you're all scrambling to discredit me and put words in my mouth.

I'd give up and put you all on ignore, but I think that's what you want...


Mod Edit: Review This Link: Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 1/22/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The planes arrive, there is a collision and a fireball, and the columns can be seen to have been cut. There are big holes in the building. Even someone like you, with a complete lack of any technical skills and limited experience, can at least see the video.


You CANNOT see any internal columns in ANY video.

If you can see otherwise we'd all like to see it also please.

But regardless you are not listening, even if ALL the columns had been severed global collapse would still not happen with NO RESISTANCE. Physics proves this impossible, no matter how you keep spinning the story and twisting my words.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

posted by Swampfox46_1999
Really? I still have the VHS tapes that my wife threw in the VCR and recorded from the reports of the first impact to the collapse of WTC 7 that day.........


posted by Griff

BTW, this is exactly how we know they have changed their archived news casts. From people like you who have the originals.


Yes indeed Griff. Lots of people have saved those original newscasts from the morning and afternoon of 9-11-2001. They should review those hundreds of original newscasts and share them with their family and friends, and wonder why the US Mainstream News Media pulled them so quickly off the air and never showed them again.

Was it because all these original newscasts did not support the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY which was being presented to the American people in propaganda form? Was it because so many journalists, being simply honest and not yet under control, were live and describing demolitions and multiple explosions? Was it because far too many firemen and pedestrians were live on tv and reporting demolitions and multiple explosions from the lower levels where there should have been no explosions?

So you people out there with original 9-11 newscasts or access to them from family and friends; take another open-minded look at them and wonder why they were so quickly censored from the ordinary American public majority who are addicted to their boob tubes and get most of their information from them.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to SPreston


i would have to agree

anyone with original videos of 9/11 should share with everyone

and anyone who tries to hide the truth or twist info to protect lies is helping the terrorist get away with murder
anyone who wants the real real truth would not ignore facts ,physics,or thermo dynamics

those first videos are key info for everyone to view

and truly need to be shared





[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Griff
 


Do you think that a continuous beam would not have been sheared by the aircraft?


Sheared...no.

Bent, mangled and disfigured....yes.

Actually, had they been continuous columns, the damage would have been worse. Because the ability to shear at the welds and bolted connections allowed just that section to be damaged instead of a thousand foot piece of steel.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You said: "You CANNOT see any internal columns in ANY video.

If you can see otherwise we'd all like to see it also please."

You are shifting the argument to internal versus external columns. The original debate was whether an aluminum and titanium aircraft could cut steel columns in a high speed impact. Some had the impression that the external columns were heavy steel. Near the bottom, the sides of the box members were 2.5" thick steel but at the top the columns were constructed entirely of 0.25" thick steel. Perhaps you overstated your position, but the truth is that the plane can cut through steel columns.

You said: "But regardless you are not listening, even if ALL the columns had been severed global collapse would still not happen with NO RESISTANCE. Physics proves this impossible, no matter how you keep spinning the story and twisting my words."

Global collapse did not happen with "no resistance." You are really saying that there wasn't enough resistance, in your opinion, and you felt that the collapse should be more leisurely. If you look at the videos carefully, you will see that the core in one tower remains standing for some seconds after the building collapses around it. The collapses took longer than you think they did.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


We must agree to disagree on this point. The fact that they parted at the weaker joints does not mean that there was not enough energy to shear continuous columns. In the photos, some appear to have been cut through. As I mentioned in previous posts, the columns were constructed of 0.25" steel in the upper part of the tower.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If you look at the videos carefully, you will see that the core in one tower remains standing for some seconds after the building collapses around it. The collapses took longer than you think they did.


I always hear this argument in defending the near free-fall acceleration.

If we take into account everything individually then yes, it took minutes for them to collapse as we can see paper and dust fluttering in the air for several minutes later.

It's a cop-out if you ask me. Take the building as a whole and it's near free-fall.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
We must agree to disagree on this point. The fact that they parted at the weaker joints does not mean that there was not enough energy to shear continuous columns. In the photos, some appear to have been cut through. As I mentioned in previous posts, the columns were constructed of 0.25" steel in the upper part of the tower.


I'm not saying that titanium engines and aluminum alloys that are stronger than steel would lose. Just the bulk of the plane that is not stronger than steel. But, the steel would definitely be permanently deformed.

Hell, look what a soft bird can do to the skin of an airplane. It's no different. The bird's outside is soft but bones can be pretty strong.

The steel would win every time against something of weaker strength.

But take into account that airplanes are not just aluminum foil wrapped over a pure aluminum skeleton and that's how we got the damage that day. There's titanium and strong aluminum alloys to contend with and the steel would lose.

I'm not going to argue this point anymore. Several people have tried to explain that aluminum doesn't slice through steel.

That doesn't mean we are "no-planers", it just means we know materials science.

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by esdad71
 


*Snip*

You really want to know? I am an ex US Navy jet mechanic NEC 6418, Gulf War vet. I have a two year degree in engineering principles (City & Guilds London). I am a certified engineering drafter. I have extensive experience in engineering and mechanics. Enough to understand basic physics and its applications.

I do not work because I am disabled from my service to this country, your country I'm English.

Satisfied esdad? Now how about your experiences eh? What makes you more qualified to say I'm wrong in my understanding of basic physics?

I've obviously hit a spot with you guys, you know I've been saying the same thing for 5 years on ATS now Esdad, and not one of you has been able to refute me. Now you're all scrambling to discredit me and put words in my mouth.

I'd give up and put you all on ignore, but I think that's what you want...


Mod Edit: Review This Link: Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 1/22/2009 by semperfortis]


This is not about satisfaction, it is about knowing who I am speaking with. That is all. Why is that such a hard think to conceptualize? Thank you for serving our country and I hope your injuries sustained were not too much to alllow you to not to continue to enjoy life. City & Guilds London is kind of like a Vocational Technology Center correct? This would mean you should have some real world experience but not a degree in Engineering or Architecture. Thanks for the information as I now see your background and where your knowledge comes from.

I am not qualified to state your views are wrong. I am college educated and since high school I have taken many engineering/architectural/mechanical drafting courses which use the principles we discuss. I am glad I have that background but I am NO expert and never claimed to be, just ask Griff. I have designed and published blueprints for homes, small commercial buildings as well as a few multi story projects but never built a skyscraper. This was all in my early 20's. I decided not to go that route however and got into computer science instead. I am now MCSE certified in all Windows platforms 2k to 2k8 server, as well as a CISCO cert, multiple security certs and a SQL cert. I am now a consultant and do just fine.

There is nothing here to refute and you have not hit a nerve. The nerve hit is the fact that there is NO physical evidence to support your claim. None. I have been asking that for 5 years and all I get is the SAME old links to Alex Jones and his gang.

I do not want to go on ignore but if that is your choice to turn away then the conversation is over and you should concede to defeat. If not, use some balls and keep up the good fight. I know you have it in you. Where is the evidence? That is what this thread was about. I have even thrown a few bones that would support your side so don;t go the closed minded route.

Now, apart from the aluminum/steel arguement, does this pic below look correct? This is what happened to the South tower...





[edit on 23-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What makes you more qualified to say I'm wrong in my understanding of basic physics?



Here's the kicker for me:

You've stated repeatedly that there were physics violations, etc... and this proves the collapses couldn't have happened, etc.

But when asked to disprove engineering articles using these basic physic laws that you claim to understand so well.... you have no cogent answer.

No physics calcs.

No explanation why whatever law you choose to use applies.

Nothing.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Gotcha...come on folks, I am just looking for the answer to 2 simple questions. Just two that in my mind sum up the entire WTC 7 conspiracy. I have asked these in so many threads and it kills them quite a bit so I am wondering if I am hitting a nerve.
1. Why did the government wait so long to take out WTC 7? Would it have not been beneficial for them to set off the mysterious invisible explosives when the other towers collapsed? (This is a simple logistical question, I do not want to hear about big oil)
2. WHERE is the evidence of explosives? I don't care if you used a top secret explosive...there would be residue or at least one relay/switch/terminal that would have assisted with the explosion. However, there is nothing.


1. Before you state government, I think you need to claify that most people who research the issue do not believe the entire "Government" was involved with 9/11, only a few within the military industrial complex. It is absurd to think the Post Office was "in on it".

So with that clarified, there has been some suggestion that the Shanksville plane was destined for WTC 7. Perhaps the perpetrators thought that WTC 1 and 2 would cause enough damage to cover for the CD after the problems with the 3rd plane. After the dust settles of course they realized that the damage wasn't suffeicent as even NIST's reports there was not major structural damaged caused to WTC 7 by the collapse of 1 and 2.

I'm not sure why you state the explosvies are "invisible."

2. Your second question is a fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of course. What you should have been able to state is, "After numerous tests for the chemical residue for explosives, neither fire investigators, FEMA, or NIST found evidence of explosive residue." Sadly you can't say that because no tests for explosive residues were done as called for in any fire investigation. The WTC 7 collapse scene was heavily controled even to the point of having the military surround the area. FEMA investigators were hampered and of course there was no steel to perform tests on.

But what about the Fresk Kills FBI recovery effort! They didn't find explosvies? Well if your thinking that your assuming that was their purpose which it was not.


Special Agent Richard Marx, who headed up the FBI's Evidence Response Team at Fresh Kills, said this about the Historical Society's proposal to document the effort: "We normally never let outsiders see a crime scene, let alone take photographs or touch anything. We were a tough sell. You became part of the team here. You have to remember we were here to find human remains.www.fbi.gov...


Notice he calls it what it is...a crime scene. Yet no tests are done to determine if explosives were usedas per called for by national fire investigation standards. They were there to find human remains.

The one piece of evidence that proves something other than fires initiated the collapse NIST ignored!



The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.# Summary for Sample 1
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.


There was evidence, it was ignored by NIST!



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   




Thanks for clarifying the US Post Office was not involved. My goodness. I always thought they delivered the explosives.


Flight 93 was not directed toward the WTC 7. It was the last to take off that day due to delay and was to hit DC, either the Capitol or the White House depending on the intel recovered after 9/11. Flight 93 was also shot down.

NIST did not test for explosives residue because I think they were pretty sure it was the planes that took down the towers, not exotic explosives. That is a good point however. NIST stated however






The second question is not a fallacy, you just do not have an answer. Fresh Kills was a crime scene and the first thing they were looking for were the remains of 3000 people.





So, all of those people at Fresh Kills, FBI no less, and there is nothing found that can show explosives. It does not need to be residue. They looked through everything and if a trigger or a cap or anything explosives related was found, at that time, it would have been attributed to terrorism and investigated. Our country was attacked. Here is a link to the Fresh Kills site
link

Still not sure what you meant by the lost evidence though...


Mod Note: Review This Link: ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote


Quote the post immediately before yours: This makes no sense, and quoting the entire previous post above yours will result in a slight warning.


[edit on 1/23/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I can understand taking away the fact I quoted the previous poster, but you removed the information to support my answers which I see as nothing more than censoring.

I want the NIST and the Fresh Kills quotes returned or this is straight up censorship. 3 other posters with opposite views quoted more from an external source than I did. Is this a little favoritism? How about the guy who posted right above me?????????

or How about a warning about staying on topic since this thread was derailed from the OP? No offense meant Semper but I cannot just sit back and take this one. THanks.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple

It lost vertical support on one side prior to losing it on the other side (read: NOT SYMMETRICAL). Any angular momentum it had was absorbed by the rest of the collapse.


What? I don't even know where you pulled that from, but it doesn't let light in.

How does that explain how the tower collapsed from underneath the top? You are just making wild guesses my friend that are not even based on any known physics.

It's not a wild guess...it's what happened in the videos.


Or do you think somehow they had explosives that magically kept that top piece from tipping?



Originally posted by ANOK
Huh? Again you're not making sense and are not understanding what is going on. The only way an object that is under angular momentum can change it's motion is if an outside force acted on it. The top itself cannot be that external force.


But the bottom of the tower can.


Originally posted by ANOKSo as there is no external force acting on that top section, UNLESS there were explosives, then there is no reason for it to not continue it's path.


It's still making contact with the building beneath...it wasn't free-falling.


Originally posted by ANOK Now if there were explosives then it explains why the bottom collapsed from under the top section causing it to not have any pivot point anymore to rest on. If it was the top section causing the collapse then it would have still continued it angular momentum no matter how much damage it was causing.


If the top section was making contact with the lower "section" then this contact would have affected the angular momentum.



Originally posted by ANOKResistance would always play a part because there was no free-fall of the top section like you want to believe.


I never stated that the top was free-falling...the fact that it didn't free fall proves that there was an external force acting on it...that force supplied by the building beneath.


Originally posted by ANOK

Not WTC7...it spilled out into the street and damaged the building across from it.


So what? Not all demolitions are 100% perfect, WTC 7 was a about perfect ANY controlled demolition could ever be.


A CD that's "as perfect as any controlled demolition could be" doesn't damage buildings across the street so severly that they must be torn down.


Originally posted by ANOK
If you believe this is not in its own footprint, you have no idea what a demolition looks like...


Severely damaging a building across the street is not "in its own footprint".




Originally posted by ANOK
But regardless you are not listening, even if ALL the columns had been severed global collapse would still not happen with NO RESISTANCE. Physics proves this impossible


I agree. Even with explosives, the collapse would not happen with NO resistance.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zappleDo you think that a 757 going 400mph couldn't damage a steel beam?


Duuuuude, are you paying ANY attention?

Isn't that what we've been discussing for how many pages?

It's no wonder you don't understand the physics, you don't seem to even understand this thread.

Your answer, NO.

I mean seriously bro, how can you ask that question?


Because your posts seem to indicate that you think it impossible that the plane and the building damaged each other simultaneously.

Then there's your claim that: "Aluminum cannot cause steel to fail" Which is completely ridiculous and shows how little you understand about physics.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

I won't argue it any more, either, but aluminum will cut through steel if the velocity is high enough. In the case of the aircraft striking steel, do not consider it one impact, but a continuing series of impacts at high velocities.
Check out the rail gun videos on youtube to see a more spectacular argument.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


ok show any information i mean any information that show thin gage aluminum and i dont care what speed it is dosent matter to me it can be 4500 feet per second for all i care so that should make it very very easy with that speed range ( 0 to 4500 feet per second )


and the thin gage aluminum like the wing of a plane that can cut through OK you really need to pay attention here you are thinking the plane just went through the steel only but contrare monfrare !!!!

this is what the wings supposedly did

they cut (COUGH) 4 inch thick box beam made from 2 inch thick aluminum that made up the facade so thats 2 inch thick front and back , mind you flat side of the box beam then all the way through the two 2 inch thick 4 inch deep other side that make the box complete so total = 8 inches of 2 inch thick aluminum and there where not just one remember

then had to cut through a 14 inch by 14 inch box beam that was 2 inch thick steel (the outer columns ) ( ill forget about the sheet rock and office fileing cabinets and concrete floors for now ) total 2 inch front side 14 inch deep on both sides of the box beam and 2 inch back side total 18 inches of 2 inch thick steel

then had to cut through core columns that where 911research.wtc7.net...

i will take the smaller measurments to be nice but where 12 inch by 36 inch and 5 inches thick so thats 5 inch front side 12 inches deep both sides and back side 5 inches thick to total 24 inches of 5 inch thick steel

and on the nose out video that means it had to do it twice so the total is

drum roll !!!!! 16 inches of 2 inch thick aluminum , 36 inches of 2 inch steel , and 48 inches of 5 inch thick steel

REALLY ?? show any information anywhere that will show me an airplane wing of any kind of plane wing and yes it can be any kind of plane wing i wont limit it to just a comercial airliner

and i will believe the official story


[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]




top topics



 
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join