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: 27
2
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
...No one knows how a building in in the situation WTC7 was in would collapse. You think you do or are merely repeating what others think would happen but the situation was without precedent and physical evidence is necessary to prove explosives.


Wrong, using Newtons physics it's quite easy to predict what would happen. How do you think demo companies figure out how to place explosives to 'pull' a building and have it do whatever they want? If they couldn't predict an outcome they wouldn't be able to do anything, and every collapse would be vastly different, yet they can demolish different building the same way whenever they want.

I don't have to prove explosives, I never said there was explosives anyway you are assuming.


There was no evidence of explosives reported. If you went to the site and found explosive residue, blasting caps, timers, wiring, secret plans, or other such evidence when you investigated, you should immediately take your evidence to appropriate authority. Until evidence of explosives is brought forward, we must conclude that explosives were not involved.


No evidence does not prove it didn't happen. Anyway the video of the actual collapse IS evidence that it wasn't a natural collapse, simply because buildings do not naturally collapse through the path of most resistance unless the resistance is first all removed all at once, fires wouldn't do that however hot it got. Fire causes steel to slowly lose it's strength and it will bend, sag etc., not suddenly and globally fail within seconds.

To say no evidence of explosives means it wasn't bought down with explosives is a COP OUT. If you don't see the actual collapse as evidence then you have no clue what you are looking at, or you don't understand basic physics such as angular momentum, conservation of momentum, resistance, friction, thermal exchange etc., there is a lot more going on than gravity which is weakest of those forces.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Wally Hope]




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by billybob
 


Perhaps you didn't read my post correctly. If the building was not in freefall for the entire collapse, then there must have been some resistance.

Pteridine logic 1, Billybob scorekeeping 0


that is completely irrelevant for at least 2.6 seconds where one hundred percent of the gravity is used to accelerate the building earthwards.

for those 2.6 seconds there is no excuse.
and, in less than 7 seconds for the entire descent NEAR freefall(of the "shell" only, even. don't give me penthouse sinks first as having anything to do with the physics argument that ANY object cannot simultaneously break itself apart AND fall at the acceleration of gravity),

newton 1, 2 and 3

momentum transfer between falling objects alone slows down even a normal demo. things like the bottom falls first, using the entire weight of the building to give it a good jolt of energy, and then subsequently blow out the next lowest floors, and they begin falling, but they impact the floor and the building slows down because it just hit rock bottom again. and so on. demolitionists will tell you they use the mass of the building to do SOME of the damage, and for that to work you need to have as much impact as possible, and for each impact the equal and opposite force rule applies. as hard as the building hits the earth, the earth hits the descending pile. there is a halving of velocity between impacting objects, but it is also mass dependent. a falling body has less WEIGHT, which is not mass, but how much GRAVITY FORCE there is. you know how astronauts practice being in zero gee? they dive bomb an empty airliner from high altitude, putting everything into freefall. at that point your are weightless, and cannot use gravity to exert any force on something. in other words, when the building is in freefall, it is essentially weightless until it decelerates, at which point the stored gravitational energy can be returned into the "pancake" system. however, as the loop goes, the energy conversion takes time. a halving of velocity for every impact. without the impact, no destruction, any destruction takes time by at least halves.

bsbray? correct me how i'm wrong.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
some scientists believed that they used new "particle weapon" instead of (or in addition of) explosive. e.g.

stj911.org...

and more others (even some scientists here in Hong Kong).

Think about it : All the dust (not smoke from fire) for days (that even has a typhoon waiting outside NY to see if needed to blow them away -- drjudywood.co.uk... )?
All the papers flying out of the steel file drawer(that have been particlized) and flying everywhere on streets -- but didn't burn inside the "steel melting heat" building?
Not even one dead/injuried body found & move to the nearby hospital (all particlized?) ?? ...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As there is no physical evidence of explosives, it is only reasonable to conclude that the catastrophic collapse was not induced by demolitions.


What do you think caused this damage to a WTC 7 columns in the foreground and the background?




Notice no "slag" from clean up crews cutting the columns down as in the infamous cut column picture I'm sure we are all aware of.
And another....


Or this one...


And here is picture with explosive residue on steel from a torpedo tube in submarine.


I'm not an expert by any means, but it appears there IS evidence of some type of explosives effect on the above steel columns and samples and I didn't even post the FEMA pictures.

But to be 100% sure, I think we would all agree it would take forensic testing to determine for sure.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Speculation can include whatever you wish. You may even speculate how buildings would fall down after being struck by airplanes and big pieces of other buildings.

If you ever find any evidence, I hope you will post it.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You may even speculate how buildings would fall down after being struck by airplanes and big pieces of other buildings.


Actually, as I pointed out, you can predict very well how a building will fall.

If this was not possible then professional demolition companies would not be able to demolish buildings the way they do.

If you couldn't predict how it would fall then they wouldn't know where to put the 'explosives', or how much is needed, to make the building fall as they want it too, either straight down or to one side into an open space as they also do.

It's quite obvious, a building with damage to one side, if it were to collapse, would fall toward the weakened side. This shouldn't even have to be explained, it's basic physics.

Is that not painfully obvious?


Safety is a blaster's number-one concern, and, for the most part, they can predict very well what will happen in an implosion.

science.howstuffworks.com...



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 
Speculation can include whatever you wish. You may even speculate how buildings would fall down after being struck by airplanes and big pieces of other buildings. If you ever find any evidence, I hope you will post it.


And what ends speculation? Forensic chemical testing of course. The type that was NEVER done and the type you continually ignore.
I posted several pieces of evidence that SHOULD have been tested but never was.
I don't blame you though. To some people the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a religion and in this religion, science in the form of forensic chemical testing, can destroy one's faith.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Actually, as I pointed out, you can predict very well how a building will fall.

If this was not possible then professional demolition companies would not be able to demolish buildings the way they do.

If you couldn't predict how it would fall then they wouldn't know where to put the 'explosives', or how much is needed, to make the building fall as they want it too, either straight down or to one side into an open space as they also do.

It's quite obvious, a building with damage to one side, if it were to collapse, would fall toward the weakened side. This shouldn't even have to be explained, it's basic physics.

Is that not painfully obvious?


The prediction of how a building will fall in a controlled demolition presumes many things and requires a great deal of preparation. There are many precuts of supports, cables are often attached to direct the fall, charges are placed carefully and timed closely. All of this activity will leave evidence that the building was demolished by explosives. None was noted in any of the WTC buildings.
As to your other point regarding a building with damage on one side, it is only obvious to those who assume too much. Unknown interior damage makes the assumption painfully invalid.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

Yes, it is possible to test and analyze for all sorts of chemical evidence. Of course, more analyses could have been done. One can analyze away for a lifetime and not rule out everything. Why weren't they done? Maybe it had to do with no evidence that would cause them to be done, such as blasting caps, wiring, timers, precut beams, secret plans, confessions from the blasters or anything else that might trigger further investigation. I'd bet that no one tested for alkaloid poisons, either.
"To some people the truther conspiracy theories of 9/11 are religions and in these religions, science, in the form of forensic chemical testing, can destroy one's faith."



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The prediction of how a building will fall in a controlled demolition presumes many things and requires a great deal of preparation. There are many precuts of supports, cables are often attached to direct the fall, charges are placed carefully and timed closely.


But I thought according to you the building fell into it's own footprint from asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires? So why would, according to your logic, anything else have to be done?

But my point is you claimed it's not possible to predict how a building will collapse, when it's done all the time regardless of what it takes.

As I already pointed out, if you couldn't predict how a building will collapse then they wouldn't know what preparations were needed to make the building collapse as they want it to. They have to know where to put the explosives and such, as you so rightly point out. It's a science that takes a lot of expertise to perform a perfect demolition. This can be done because we know physics, and physics is predictable. We are not in the dark with this, like you seem to be. Otherwise demolitions would be nothing but guesses, and buildings would fall in unpredictable ways, as apposed to the very controlled ways we know is done.


All of this activity will leave evidence that the building was demolished by explosives. None was noted in any of the WTC buildings.

And again please explain how you know that evidence wasn't there? Because from what I understand that evidence wasn't even looked for and was probably actively ignored.

Also a lot of the those processes, such as gutting the building and pre-cutting of columns, is done for safety, which wasn't a high priority on 9-11. 'Explosives' in the right places would still do the job.


As to your other point regarding a building with damage on one side, it is only obvious to those who assume too much. Unknown interior damage makes the assumption painfully invalid.


Unknown interior damage goes both ways for this argument. You have NO idea what damage there was, so to claim it was damage that caused the collapse is nothing but an assumption based on what you WANT to believe, and the dismissal of other known factors.

But regardless for a building to collapse straight down into the path of MOST resistance then somehow that resistance had be ZERO. No matter how much damage the building got to one face it's not going to cause ALL the columns to fail at the same time and the same speed. The strongest part of a building is it's columns. It would only take ONE columns to remain standing to cause the collapse to not be symmetrical and be a localized collapse only.

These facts are all known, it's the basis for the science of professional demolitions. It's how they know how to do it, or do you think they just take a stab in the dark and just hope it works the way they want it to?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


There is no evidence of demolition. You may wish for it all you want. You may say that no one looked for it. You may even demand a reinvestigation but for that to happen, you need a reason. You have none except your feeling that something was wrong.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes but there is also NO evidence for your claim of a natural collapse.
And again no evidence does not mean it didn't happen.

If I have a vid of a murder, but no murderer or weapon can be found would you claim the guy died from natural causes?

There is enough evidence in the way the collapse happened to suspect that is was not a natural collapse.

You are ignoring this, and so did NIST.

You can claim all day there is no evidence, but you again have no idea what evidence was hidden, or even what evidence to look for other than signs of conventional explosives when conventional explosives are not the only answer. You do not have all the information. You are ignoring the obvious.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Wally Hope]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CONTACT
some scientists believed that they used new "particle weapon" instead of (or in additional to) explosive. e.g.

stj911.org...

Think about it : All the dust (not smoke from fire) that last for days (that even has a typhoon waiting right outside NY to see if needed to blow the dust away -- drjudywood.co.uk... )?
All the papers flying out of the steel file drawer(that have been particlized) and flying everywhere on streets -- which didn't burn inside the "steel melting heat" building?
Not even one dead/injuried body found & carried to the nearby hospital (all particlized?)? ...


Sorry, I have to add : if the passport of the terrorist was found with no burnt, how come no dead body found? If found, it is a standard procedure to bring to the nearest hospital.

One more question I hope someone could tell me is -- that's one of the most expensive land in the world, how come nothing build on it yet? Thanks



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes but there is also NO evidence for your claim of a natural collapse.
And again no evidence does not mean it didn't happen.

If I have a vid of a murder, but no murderer or weapon can be found would you claim the guy died from natural causes?

There is enough evidence in the way the collapse happened to suspect that is was not a natural collapse.

You are ignoring this, and so did NIST.

You can claim all day there is no evidence, but you again have no idea what evidence was hidden, or even what evidence to look for other than signs of conventional explosives when conventional explosives are not the only answer. You do not have all the information. You are ignoring the obvious.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by Wally Hope]


You feel it is "obvious." You have no information that there was any sort of conspiracy. You suspect that it was not a natural collapse but again, have no evidence and no method of execution. You see videos but don't know what they mean so you claim that it is evidence of demolition. Your only rebuttal is that the evidence was hidden or that super secret materials were somehow used and no one knows what to look for. You could just as easily claim gravity beams from afar and say that the evidence was hidden.
It is you who has no information and you are ignoring that fact.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

Yes, it is possible to test and analyze for all sorts of chemical evidence. Of course, more analyses could have been done. One can analyze away for a lifetime and not rule out everything. Why weren't they done? Maybe it had to do with no evidence that would cause them to be done, such as blasting caps, wiring, timers, precut beams, secret plans, confessions from the blasters or anything else that might trigger further investigation. I'd bet that no one tested for alkaloid poisons, either.
"To some people the truther conspiracy theories of 9/11 are religions and in these religions, science, in the form of forensic chemical testing, can destroy one's faith."


Correction, NO testing nor ANALYZING for controlled demolition was done.
They didn't look for evidence of explosives. You can't find what you aren't looking for.

Are alkaloid poisions used to bring down builidngs?

Are alkaloid poisons a common terrorist device used in attacks like explosives are?

Do you think the steel in those photos I posted should be tested for explosive residue? Why or why not?




There is no evidence of demolition. You may wish for it all you want. You may say that no one looked for it. You may even demand a reinvestigation but for that to happen, you need a reason. You have none except your feeling that something was wrong.


So you ignored the evidence that should have been tested. You know no one looked for evidence. You know at the Fresh Kill's site, the FBI were searching for personal effects, NOT evidence of explosives. See their website. You know NIST's subcontract stated that the company would not investigate floors 1-8 in WTC 7.

You know the evidence was destroyed before testing.



NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.” It would seem painfully obvious the very engineers and investigators that are tasked to determine the cause of collapse would be “reasonably known parties” and would find it very helpful to “participate in or observe the testing” in order to aid in their investigation. Since when do we destroy evidence before we identify the cause of collapse? We don’t solve crimes, or get safer buildings by destroying evidence, and then hypothesize the cause. There is nowhere in the NFPA guidelines, or any investigation guidelines that we have found that call for the destruction of evidence, and then the investigation. We often hear people say it was about the money in the recycled steel. We haven’t been able to find one other example of a mass murder, and engineering catastrophe where the evidence was destroyed prior to determining cause, for the money. Don’t accept that excuse. Willful destruction of evidence before an investigation completion is only done to hinder the investigation or hide the truth!


You know NIST lied about no blast sounds in the building:


You know their is NO evidence of the extreme heat required for steel failure as evidence above shows. You know NIST in their labs did not get floors to collapse based upon the temperatures. You know the steel that NIST examined did not show signs of the extreme heating needed for the steel to fail. You know NIST's WTC 7 model do not match reality! You know NIST did not test for explosive residue. You know the destruction in the basement sublevels was not caused by jet fuel. You know the Beijing Tower, built to lean in the first place, should have collapsed from thermal expansion like WTC7 but did not.

So I ask, what evidence can you offer to prove the official theories?

What you are doing, sir, is exactly what NIST and the official story requires: ignoring and omitting evidence! This is exactly what fervent religious zealot does when evidence proves his religion is wrong.



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Wally Hope
reply to post by pteridine
 

Yes but there is also NO evidence for your claim of a natural collapse.
And again no evidence does not mean it didn't happen. If I have a vid of a murder, but no murderer or weapon can be found would you claim the guy died from natural causes?There is enough evidence in the way the collapse happened to suspect that is was not a natural collapse.You are ignoring this, and so did NIST.You can claim all day there is no evidence, but you again have no idea what evidence was hidden, or even what evidence to look for other than signs of conventional explosives when conventional explosives are not the only answer. You do not have all the information. You are ignoring the obvious.[edit on 27-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

You feel it is "obvious." You have no information that there was any sort of conspiracy. You suspect that it was not a natural collapse but again, have no evidence and no method of execution. You see videos but don't know what they mean so you claim that it is evidence of demolition. Your only rebuttal is that the evidence was hidden or that super secret materials were somehow used and no one knows what to look for. You could just as easily claim gravity beams from afar and say that the evidence was hidden.
It is you who has no information and you are ignoring that fact.


Here is what you can do to prove the official story. Remember if it doesn't work, you must accept the fact that some other source in the form of explosives such as thermite as found in the dust debris assisted gravity in the global collapse.

Take 1/10 block of anything, raise it a few centimeters or even inches above the remaining 9/10 structure and drop it. That experiment actually favors the official story because there is no resistance between the 1/10 block and the remaining 9/10 structure.
I can guarantee you 100% of the time, the experiment will not result in a gobal collapse! Physics can guarantee that! That experiment can even be applied to the Twin Towers and it will not result in goal collapse.
I'm sure your aware of the Hewia experiment over at JREF, right? Do you know why NO ONE has taken up the experiment? Because they KNOW global collapse will not ensue. Again, welcome to science destroying your religion.
Here is the challenge in appropriate form:


It is assumed in the official collapse theory that a structure will be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove it!
Conditions: 1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!
2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.
3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc.
4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be



posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


It did fall to the side. Any of the videos show that. It fell to the weak corner. If they are still finding body parts 7 years later I would think that somewhere, in that huge city, that there would be some type of evidence of explosives. Nope. Nothing...except a paint chip.



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


It did fall to the side. Any of the videos show that. It fell to the weak corner. If they are still finding body parts 7 years later I would think that somewhere, in that huge city, that there would be some type of evidence of explosives. Nope. Nothing...except a paint chip.


Can you point to the store that sells industrial paint that has the same chemical signature as thermite?

Can you point to the store that sells paint that explodes in a huge release of energy when being exposed to flames?




Search for remains from 9/11 to resume Federal regulators have cleared the way for crews to resume searching for human remains on the roof of a skyscraper being torn down near the World Trade Center site, officials said yesterday. The Environmental Protection Agency suspended the search in April after saying workers were not properly protecting themselves from asbestos on the roof of the former Deutsche Bank building. But the EPA this week told the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the organization dismantling the 41-story tower, that its new plans for cleaning the roof of debris and remains were acceptable. More than 600 human bone fragments have been found in the building, most on the roof, since workers began dismantling it last fall"-Idaho Observer and New York Times


Now explain again how gravity alone can blow bodies apart and eject them onto the tops of other sky scrappers using paint?

Gravity-the most destructive power on earth. NOT.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

There is no physical evidence that the signature of the red chips is the same as thermite. There is also no evidence of explosion of the red chips. There is an exotherm when running the red chips in the DSC in air. The exotherm could be combustion of the organic matrix and is not evidence of thermitic reaction.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 

There is no physical evidence that the signature of the red chips is the same as thermite. There is also no evidence of explosion of the red chips. There is an exotherm when running the red chips in the DSC in air. The exotherm could be combustion of the organic matrix and is not evidence of thermitic reaction.


Perhaps you should read the paper again or perhaps publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal. The evidence is in the paper. Ignoring doesn't make it not exist.

Now, back to my question: where can I buy some paint that explodes?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join