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: 23
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
That depends on how fast the mass is moving, and how much of it there is. 3,000 sticks of dynamite can do quite a bit of damage...do you think that much dynamite could get rid of the first set of columns and also destroy some core columns?


LOL obviously.

Dynamite? Who cares? What if it could destroy it? Again you’re missing the fact that it would still NOT become a global collapse.

And if you’re trying to say that proves the plane could do it, try again, and this time include the loss of momentum from hitting the buildings façade.


That's already factored in...please try to keep up.


Originally posted by ANOK

It didn't...or the buildings would have fallen immediately when the planes hit.


Well I'm glad you realise this. So you admit, as do NIST, that the planes impact had no significant effect on the buildings integrity?

www.911proof.com...


Here's what NIST says about the plane impacts:

The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.



Originally posted by ANOK


Gravity...and it didn't "create energy"..the energy was already there in the form of potential energy (like a roller coaster at the top of a hill).


LOL you have no idea what energy is do you? You think energy is a physical thing don't you? Potential energy is only present when an object is under stress, and a release of that stress changes the potential energy in kinetic energy.


Wrong.

If you pick up a book from the floor, and set it on a table, that object now has gravitational potential energy which will be converted to kinetic energy if and when that object comes off of that table and falls to the floor.


Originally posted by ANOK
Your roller coaster doesn't have thousands of tons of steel between it and the bottom of the hill.


It's a simplification...the point is when something is lifted, kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed...so why don't you tell us what happens to all of the energy input into lifting a 1kg mass to a height of 100 meters.


Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you folks keep ignoring all that steel, bolted and welded together, that had ZERO damage? You seem to think that gravity can somehow make all that mysteriously disappear?


No one is ignoring that. You obviously do not realize how powerful earth's gravity is.


Originally posted by ANOK
Why would the top of the building have enough potential energy stored up to crush itself?
Were there giant bungee chords attaching it to the ground or something lol?


You do realize that gravity was pulling it down....right? Do you have any idea how much gravitational potential energy there was in the towers?


Originally posted by ANOK

So how do you explain it?


Explain what? Why the top defied physics? Well that's what I'd like to know...
I can guess...
If you missed it go back and re-read, I’m tired of your circle jerks.


So you claim that it 'defied physics', yet you have no explanation. Tell me...are you a physicist?


Originally posted by ANOK

"No resistance"? Now you're just being ridiculous. It fell slower than free-fall, which would be IMPOSSIBLE without resistance.


Deny, deny, deny....The buildings, all three, experienced at least one period of free fall acceleration, according to NIST. So take it up with them.


They didn't fall at free-fall speed, so there was resistance.


You are being ridicules in your definition of resistance.


Originally posted by ANOK

No. Feel free to do so since you claim to know the physics.


LOL that was a rhetoric question, that I knew you wouldn't be able to answer,


I did answer...I don't know the number. Apparently you don't either.


Originally posted by ANOK

2 - Because it fell 500-1000 feet and gained a lot of kinetic energy along the way


What did? The pieces of debris, weighing tons were just tossed up by a gravity fed collapse to land 600ft away, and cause other steel columns to completely fail?


Up? no. Laterally? Yes.

Originally posted by ANOK

"loses" is a relative term.


You are a relative term...


Was that an attempt at an insult of some kind?


Originally posted by ANOK

...and the collision still damages both cars...even if one is made of aluminum and the other made of steel. ;-)


LOL again not the point, you are arguing for complete destruction of BOTH objects.


No I am not. I never claimed that the planes completely destroyed the towers.


Originally posted by ANOK
Have you ever seen a crash between an 18 wheeler and a small two seater car, where the car completely destroyed the truck?


No.


[edit on 1/26/2009 by ANOK]


Seriously, Anok....what's the highest level physics course you've completed? (and with what grade?) I really want to know.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I've said it once and I'll say it again...

There are 3.5 billion reasons why history never records the first steel frame building collapse in history.

If it really was the first steel frame building collapse in history, it was not built to the specifications claimed on the insurance contract and as a result that contract never would have paid.

Saying such things without sufficiently vetting the science of the event is tantamount to participating in revisionist history.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

You said: "It doesn't matter if you say fires alone made the buildings completely collapse. It doesn't matter if you say the plane impacts alone made the buildings completely collapse. It doesn't matter if you say that the fires and impacts made the buildings collapse. Never has a steel-structured highrise completely collapsed due to fire, and demo companies don't destroy only a few floors in the middle to make buildings completely collapse."

Your obvious lack of an open mind coupled with your faulty logic are limiting. Demo companies do not demolish buildings anywhere near the size of WTC 1 & 2 so there is no basis of comparison. If we follow the logic of the steel structured highrise comment, this means that there can never be a natural collapse due to fire. Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means. Some group or another, likely with the word "Truth" in its name, will spend their collective lives theorizing about the "real" reasons. They will do this because collapses other than demolition have never happened before. They will seek out evidence that just isn't there, and analyze videos of the event and babble about how it "didn't look right."
Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire, only, and I earlier posted links to two of them. The CT folks ruminated and, not liking the posts, raised the ante for examples of steel framed high rise buildings collapsing. I'm sure that if those are found, the logic above will apply and they will be said to be more examples of demolition using the incisive Anok-Lycopersicum Rules of Building Collapse backed by self-taught physics and higher math from someone shouting "Duuude!"



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


here some evidence for question 2

www.studyof911.com...

www.studyof911.com...

_javascript:playMovie('/video/files/wtc7_explosion_01.flv')

_javascript:playMovie('/video/files/wtc7_explosion_02.flv')

_javascript:playMovie('/video/files/CNN_WTC7_Too_Early.flv')

_javascript:playMovie('/video/files/911Building7Collapse.flv')

_javascript:playMovie('/video/files/wtc7northfire.flv')

_javascript:playMovie('/video/files/wtc7-modernmarvels-ed13.flv')

just a good link of videos whatever your opinion is

www.studyof911.com...

sorry the links didnt copy like i wanted but first vide has the links agin sorry






[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means.


You are wrong, please show a steel framed building that symmetrically collapsed completely, at near free-fall speed, from one hours worth of sporadic office fires.

You can't compare partial collapses over long periods of time with an instant complete symmetrical global collapse that we saw three buildings do on 9/11.

The point is if what happened to the WTC building is physically possible there should be a precedence, somewhere, for the physics involved in that type of collapse. There is none, not even close. The collapses can't even be explained by anyone, even NIST couldn't do it. Where is their explanation of the collapses? They stopped at initiation, after many assumptions and exaggerated maths, and failed to continue and explain what happened after the collapses were initiated.

NIST wants you to believe that global collapse was inevitable, how can they make a claim that has no precedence to support it? Not even a psychic could have predicted global collapse...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means.


You are wrong, please show a steel framed building that symmetrically collapsed completely, at near free-fall speed, from one hours worth of sporadic office fires.

You can't compare partial collapses over long periods of time with an instant complete symmetrical global collapse that we saw three buildings do on 9/11.



reply to post by ANOK
 

Anok, you say....


Why can we not look at a partial collapse? Because you and the AE911T say so? I just posted a video that shows a steel frame building, burning for hours, that suffers a collapse that looks just like 1,2 and 7 in video. What you have to realize is the size of the WTC and it's unique design. Once the support for the upper floors began to weaken it was a matter of time. No sprinklers or fireproofing which is what the engineers put in place to save teh building. as far as unique, Name 3 other buildings using the same design and in size as teh WETC 1 and 2. . It will be tough.

So now you all have a video that shows what you are saying has never and could never happen? Where is the next direction since this is now out the window?

Also, from ANOK



NIST wants you to believe that global collapse was inevitable, how can they make a claim that has no precedence to support it? Not even a psychic could have predicted global collapse


No, not a psychic, but a scientist, such as those who work at NIST. The ones with the Nobel prizes who went to MIT and Cal tech. So, unless something has occurred at one time there is no basis for it to occur at all? That makes absolutely no sense at all. NIST does not want anyone to believe anything. They are there to recommend how buildings in the future
are designed so this could not happen. Some of the recommendations are already in place in the new WTC 7.


[edit on 27-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Anok,
You said: "The point is if what happened to the WTC building is physically possible there should be a precedence, somewhere, for the physics involved in that type of collapse. There is none, not even close. The collapses can't even be explained by anyone, even NIST couldn't do it. Where is their explanation of the collapses? They stopped at initiation, after many assumptions and exaggerated maths, and failed to continue and explain what happened after the collapses were initiated."

How much of a precedence can be found for such unique buildings? How many burning buildings were and are videotaped? How much precedence was there for the first atomic bomb? According to your logic, it could not have possibly worked. Would you have agreed to sit on it to make your point?

There is no evidence for demolition other than the events of aircraft impacts and fire. Feelings that 'something is wrong' are not evidence, they are feelings. This entire conspiracy falls apart as soon as the methods that might have been used are considered. Who planted the explosives/thermite, where, and when? How did they know where the aircraft would strike and at what angle? How could they have initiated the collapse on the impact floors after a time delay that exposed the devices to intense fire? What demolition materials were used? Was the rest of WTC 1 wired? How about WTC 2? When could that have been done and how much explosive was used? If you argue against 6 billion Joules [note spelling of Joule, lycopersicum] of airplane doing damage, you'll need a lot of explosive to destroy the rest of the building. Each airplane's energies were equivalent to about a ton of TNT. One ton per floor might have been noticed. What about WTC 7? WTC 7 collapsed starting with the penthouses, first one then the other. Then the middle sagged, and then the collapse happened. How was that wired? Was one column or cantilevered beam destroyed to start the process or were they all blown up at once?
I showed earlier that using standard coefficients of expansion for steel that the 50' beams in WTC7 would expand up to 5" with a 500 C temp increase. Connecting bolts were 7/8" diameter. Maybe there would be enough movement to shear some of those bolts. No explosive residue, timers, detonators, wires, or other such materials were found. Where are they?
Here are two steel framed structures that I referenced earlier that unexpectedly collapsed due to fire only.
McCormick Place Convention Center, Chicago -- Burned and collapsed, Jan. 16, 1967
Sight and Sound Theater, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania -- Burned and collapsed , January 1997



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
wasnt there seismic data collected that day on all 3 buildings ??
anyone have any data on that i have seen some some where

this is a good one of building 5
www.youtube.com...

and what about the explosions heard by firemen??
www.youtube.com...

what about this one the men walking away arent firemen they look like demo guys to me
www.youtube.com...

look at the tower next to the one coming down notice the explosion going off??
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


what about all of these
911research.wtc7.net...

this guy is dead now no known cause yet

www.youtube.com...

this guy supposedly committed suicide
brasschecktv.com...

another good one

globalresearch.ca...

funny but good
www.youtube.com...


another good one
www.youtube.com...



just some good videos

[edit on 27-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 

There is seismic data posted in several places; some are CT some are not. It is the same data, but there are differences in interpretation, not surprisingly. Seismic experts say no explosions, CT folks say squibs. Fall times are significantly longer than free fall with seismic data. Video shows many structural components falling faster than the building.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I've said it once and I'll say it again...

There are 3.5 billion reasons why history never records the first steel frame building collapse in history.

If it really was the first steel frame building collapse in history, it was not built to the specifications claimed on the insurance contract and as a result that contract never would have paid.

Saying such things without sufficiently vetting the science of the event is tantamount to participating in revisionist history.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]


It was also the first time in history that 757s slammed into 110 story skyscrapers at high speed. Why would you expect the results of such an event to be any less unique than the "first time in history" event itself?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by apacheman
 


If you believe our military was so incompetent as to be unable to intercept a single one of those airliners with all the time they had, then you've obviously never served
It is not a matter of incompetance. It is a matter of unpreparedness. We did not train for, nor did we ever prepare for intercepting hostile aircraft within our own airspace. And when our fighters did launch, they followed SOP to the letter, they proceeded to their ADIZ intercept points which were located offshore. Everyone likes to mention Payne Stewart like there is some sort of comparision to be made, when there really isnt. The four airliners on 9/11 turned off their transponders, which made them just one more blip on a screen filled with them, in addition, they left their respective altitudes to make detection that much harder. Payne's IFF remained on, his aircraft at altitude and it STILL took an hour to get F-16s into a position to intercept. I am still not sure where you get this idea that there was this large amount of time available to intercept these planes.
Then the cute part...its "obvious" I have never served and you ask for my credentials.
I currently have 21 years in as a member of the United States military, split between the Navy and the Air Force.

You are incorrect sir in stating that we were unprepared and did not train for hijacks originating in our own air space. Why would you say such a thing? I know this has been a "debunking" talking point for years that has been proven wrong repeatedly. But now the truth comes out...

Commander Marr's briefing to the 9/11 Commission Staff-



Intercept Mission at NEADS: 1) Hijack: Prior to September 11,2001 (9/11) the hijack response mission at NEADS directed a fighter trail be established to ensure the air route safety of the hijacked flight. According to Marr, in the September 14th, 1993 Lufthansa Airbus A320-111 crash it took a number of hours for the "channels" to conduct the proper requests from both the NEADS and civilian agencies. It took over six hours to gain an initial tail on this occasion. Marr further commented that initially the White House did not want NEADS to interfere with the event, but then decided that there could be a role. [bold]Marr noted he participated once with a live exercise for a hijack headed north from St. Louis in the south.[/bold] They attempted to scramble aircraft internally in this exercise, and Marr commented that it did not work very well. The lesson from this scramble exercise was that it is easier to tum a fighter around immediately after take off than have to take the time to position a fighter for takeoff in the direction of its target. 2) Counter-drug and Air Sovereignty COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NEADS conducts counter-drug and air sovereignty missions, but Marr commented that the majority of the counter-drug operations take place at SEADS (Souteast Air Defense Sector). 3) Search and Rescue Most of the intercept operations at NEADS involve Search and Rescue operations.Source: 9/11 Commission Memoradum


Marr's himself states he participated in a live-fly hijack training exercise originating in the United States, St. Louis to be exact!!!
And since your a veteran, thanks for serving btw, you fully understand American Air Sovereignty and its definition and NORAD and NEADS intercept mission in relation to that.

The 1993 incident that you may jump on without analysis took place in Europe which explains the 6 hour time frame.


In conclusion, supporters of the OCT may now stop using the "debunking falsity"-"NORAD only looks outward and they never practiced against hijackings originating in the U.S."



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
the real mystery is how the gold, originally said to be in building 7, turned up in Romania 2 years after the fact. (according to freelandradio.org, now off the air)...

also, what happend to building #5??

9/11 is still alive!



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
Saying such things without sufficiently vetting the science of the event is tantamount to participating in revisionist history.

I only deal with science, math and logic. I've been researching 9/11 for several years and my main course of study is controlled demolition and the explosive demolition of the WTC towers with explosives. Most of us aren't anonymous people typing a bunch of garbage out of our keyboards because we think we know what we're talking about.

The science of the event, along with the video evidence, physical evidence, the witness testimony, all support the demolition of the WTC towers with explosives. And saying anything else is to deny all available evidence.


Originally posted by pteridine
Your obvious lack of an open mind coupled with your faulty logic are limiting.

You must be looking in the mirror when you type things like this because it has nothing to do with logic. It's a fact that demo companies do not take out a few floors in the middle of a building to make a whole building collapse completely. The building has to be wired from top to bottom, period. No faulty logic, just facts.


Originally posted by pteridine
Demo companies do not demolish buildings anywhere near the size of WTC 1 & 2 so there is no basis of comparison.

Wow, we're just making things up as we go now, huh? Size is irrelevant. Controlled demo concept works the same way no matter the shape or size of a building.


Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means

Now you're just making an assumption. We're talking about steel-structured highrises and we're also talking about complete global collapses which have only been accomplished by controlled demolition and never by fires.


Originally posted by pteridine
Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire

All kinds of buildings have partially collapsed due to fires. But never a steel-structured highrise, and never fully and completely as seen only in controlled demolitions.


Originally posted by adam_zapple
It was also the first time in history that 757s slammed into 110 story skyscrapers at high speed.

That's irrelevant considering the fact the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of jetliners and probably multiple jetliners. It's also irrelevant considering that since the jetliners only partially damaged a few floors and demo companies can't just destroy a few floors to achieve a complete, global collapse.

Demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom and it wouldn't matter if a jetliner destroyed a few floors or a demo company destroyed a few floors, if the rest of the building wasn't wired, there would only be a local collapse of the damaged section only.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The science of the event, along with the video evidence, physical evidence, the witness testimony, all support the demolition of the WTC towers with explosives. And saying anything else is to deny all available evidence.


What "physical evidence" is there of any explosives? Det cord? Explosive residue? Explosively-cut beams?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Wow, we're just making things up as we go now, huh? Size is irrelevant. Controlled demo concept works the same way no matter the shape or size of a building.


Thre size/shape/construction of a building is CRUCIAL in determinig which supports to take out in what order so that the desired result is achieved.


Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means

Now you're just making an assumption. We're talking about steel-structured highrises and we're also talking about complete global collapses which have only been accomplished by controlled demolition and never by fires.

How many other 110-story buildings had fires like the WTC and survived?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by pteridine
Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire

All kinds of buildings have partially collapsed due to fires. But never a steel-structured highrise, and never fully and completely as seen only in controlled demolitions.


Or seen anytime a steel-structured highrise was hit by a 757 or debris from a collapsing 110-story highrise. Again, you point out that the results are unique without regard for the equally-unique circumstances.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by adam_zapple
It was also the first time in history that 757s slammed into 110 story skyscrapers at high speed.

That's irrelevant considering the fact the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of jetliners and probably multiple jetliners.


They did withstand the jet impacts. They just didn't withstand the combination of jet impact & fire damage.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom and it wouldn't matter if a jetliner destroyed a few floors or a demo company destroyed a few floors, if the rest of the building wasn't wired, there would only be a local collapse of the damaged section only.


Argument from personal belief.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom and it wouldn't matter if a jetliner destroyed a few floors or a demo company destroyed a few floors, if the rest of the building wasn't wired, there would only be a local collapse of the damaged section only.


Argument from personal belief.

I find it unfathomable that you take something that's factual and try to say that it's someone's personal beliefs. I'm truly floored. You've just shown that not only do you know absolutely nothing about controlled demolitions or how they work, you will make up any excuse in the book to deny anything factual.

You are also now on ignore.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
adam_zapple

do none of the videos of witnesses count as evidence ??

do the explosions recorded not count as evidence??

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

i would call this evidence hands down



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Bone,
You misunderstand my statements. I was using the logic of the CT folks. They say that if there is not a precedent for total collapse of a steel-framed high rise by fire and therefore the WTC buildings must have been demoed.
The next time a steel-framed high rise building collapses after a fire, there again will be no precedent since the WTC's have not established one and again there will be claims of demolition. This will go on infinitum and is the fallacy of "precedent."



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

But if there has never been one, you can't say there will be one in the future. And even if there is one in the future, the available evidence will tell us what happened and it probably won't have anything to do with conspiracies.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Then it will provide a retroactive precedent. If it should look like the towers, it could show that there was no demolition and all the CTer's would have to admit defeat.

Of course the fallacy of "no precedent therefore it can't be" in the TC argument still stands as it does not allow for a first-time event. I used the analogy of the first atomic bomb which was the first of its kind and also had no precedent. Since it had no precedent, it could not possibly work. Would you be willing to sit on it as it was detonated?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





You are wrong, please show a steel framed building that symmetrically collapsed completely, at near free-fall speed, from one hours worth of sporadic office fires.


Watched a steel frame building collapse from fire alone, no 767 hit it,
one cold january morning number of years back. A FF was killed in the
collapse - took 2 days with heavy equipment to recover body. Spent
13 hours moving hoses and pouring water on building and on adjacent
building which was also on fire. Watched roof collapse on this one.

Now if buildings cant collapse from fire why do they teach FF from day 1
that structural collapse is the greatest killer of FF? Why do they drum
into us to watch for signs of structural instability or collapse if the
building is never going to collapse? Been to number of classes/seminars
including some given by FDNY officers, most of whom were at WTC
and watched building collapses - explained sequence of what happened

So next time at building fire can tell Chief not to worry - ANOK said the
building cant collpase from fire....

This is the real world - not some tin foil fantasy land in Mommy's basement



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join