Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now..., page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 02:50 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Gonenuts


Ziad Jarrah



In spring of 1996, Jarrah left Lebanon for the first time and went to Greifswald, Germany for college. There, he was more known for attending discos and beach parties than mosques. He met a female dentistry student named Aysel Sengün and the two fell in love. She was Muslim, but also very secular. In 1997, Jarrah switched colleges and majors, and started studying aerospace engineering in Hamburg.


www.fact-archive.com...

Abdulaziz al-Omari


He graduated with honors from high school, then attended Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University where he earned a degree



Wail al-Shehri


Wail graduated from Abha teacher’s college in 1999. After college, al-Shehri worked as an elementary school physical education teacher at the Khamis Mushayat airbase.


Waleed al-Shehri


He also frequented Al-Seqley mosque, and attended Abha teachers college for some time before dropping out.


Satam al-Suqami


Al-Suqami studied Islamic law at King Fahd University in Riyadh.
[/quote

Marwan Al-Shehhi


Al-Shehhi first came to Bonn, Germany in 1996, on scholarship from the UAE Army to study marine engineering.


Majed Moqed


Moqed later attended King Fahd University.


Ahmen Al_Nami


At King Khalid University, Al Nami studied Islamic law, and he started hanging out with a different group of friends


www.debunk911myths.org...

You can find all of the above information at that link....or in any number of any other media links online. No, all of the hijackers didnt attend university, but quite a few did, as did the London bombers. Again, not quite the sheep herders you portray them as.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 03:28 PM by ANOK
Originally posted by adam_zapple
No...you seem to think that the path of least resistance is off to the side...I'm just trying to show you how silly that assumption is.


OK this is my last reply to you because you're just not getting it and I'm tired of repeating myself.

You are confusing two DIFFERENT situations!

In your diagram the sphere is floating in open air, there is nothing underneath it holding it up, thus it falls straight down until it hits the resistance of the block. What it does then depends on the materials.

The wtc buildings were SOLID structures. There was nothing 'dropped' on them.

If your sphere was sitting on top of the block what would cause it to fall through the block (path of most resistance)?

Your diagram is a completely different situation to the collapse of solid buildings. Maybe if Allah had lifted up the top sections of the buildings and then dropped them you'd have a point.

So instead of falling straight down, the pieces of the building that were collapsing should have somehow moved outside the towers since there was less resistance there? What, exactly, would have moved them?


What happens when an object falls on another of equal mass? Does it continue its path through the object? Or does it either stop due to resistance, or fall off the side of the object it hit?

Every time a building collapses, every time something falls to the ground, gravity has overcome its resistance.


No it hasn't. Building don't just fall without that resistance being taken away by weakening the structures main supports. Gravity alone wont do that, are you serious?


The more mass there is, the more force that gravity imparts to the object.


And the more mass there is the more resistance it imparts. But again this is a mute point because nothing fell on the buildings, nothing was added to it that hadn't always been there.

You could completely sever ALL the columns around it's circumference and the top would still NOT fall through the rest of the building. I'm not sure why you can't understand this simple physical fact.

You keep claiming that the collapses were "symmetrical". What is this claim based on besides the fact that you've heard other people say it?


You know what symmetrical means right? It means all 4 corners of the buildings dropped at the same time. Try reviewing the collapse videos.

NEAR free fall is not the same as free fall. There was resistance so stop claiming there wasn't.


OH OK so it's down to your refusal to see common sense. The buildings could have taken twice as long to collapse, it would still be too fast. Show me ANY building in history that has collapsed at anything close to free-fall speed without help. The few seconds faster than free-fall could be put down to simply air resistance, because it sure didn't meet any resistance from it's undamaged structure.

As to the "breakdown of physics", why don't you explain, using physics, why the collapses were impossible. (As soon as you can explain why it is you think the collapses were "symmetrical")


I've already done this, are you actually reading my posts?

Symmetrical; noting a set consisting of pairs of points having this relation with respect to the same axis.

dictionary.reference.com...

All 3 buildings, all four corners fell at the same time, or within seconds of each other. This is only possible when ALL supports fail equally. If only one columns remains standing the building will not collapse symmetrically, demolition 101.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 05:06 PM by Gonenuts
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Its called common sense.


No! it is call an OPINION! So save your nonsense for your self, and stop pretending you know everything, because if you did then you would not be wasting your time on a conspiracies site, you would be writing books and making a fortune.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 05:20 PM by Gonenuts
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


DNA fingerprinting would settle the controversy, as fragmentary remains of all the hijackers have been found. Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, but the FBI has shown no interest thus far.

www.fact-archive.com...
Well, now we know the truths don’t we? The FBI has never done any DNA on any of the highjackers! This is the link you are getting your lying info from.
So far you have presented nothing but hearsay from the US government the OS that is a LIE.
NO DNA WAS EVER DONE, TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE HIGHJACKERS!


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 07:21 PM by thedman
reply to post by thegreatone




I have a question. who was doing the cleanup? was it everyday NY construction joes or were they government employees?


They were normal demolition/construction workers supervised by
New York City Department of Design and Construction

Been several books and documentaries produced about the workers
who cleaned up the debris

Check out this book -

www.amazon.com...


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 08:49 PM by esdad71
Originally posted by Gonenuts
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


DNA fingerprinting would settle the controversy, as fragmentary remains of all the hijackers have been found. Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, but the FBI has shown no interest thus far.

www.fact-archive.com...
Well, now we know the truths don’t we? The FBI has never done any DNA on any of the highjackers! This is the link you are getting your lying info from.
So far you have presented nothing but hearsay from the US government the OS that is a LIE.
NO DNA WAS EVER DONE, TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE HIGHJACKERS!



DNA testing has been done and the remains 1dentified. No one has attempted to recover the remains as far as family members. The coroners office in NY had the remains, not the FBI. The FBI was used to help identify the remains along with other international agenices. It was not until after I believe 2003 that any of the remains were identified in NY and as of now only 4 of the 10 have been identified.

Family members did not want the remains mixed with their loved ones. THere was a story in the NY Times in September/October. Doctors name is Robert Shaler. Now that the remains have been identified they are held in undisclosed locations by the FBI as evidence.

Man, have a valium....



reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 09:38 PM by lycopersicum
reply to post by Seymour Butz



for one read any post i dont beleive it was demoed

and as far as thermo expansion, you do realize the fire was not hot enough that was recorded that day to cause any shrinkage of any kind on the 110,000 psi construction steel used in the construction of all the towers with WTC7 being the strongest built building of all 7 buildings

in order for expansion of the steel of that quality to shrink enough to cause a calapse of each floor or any single floor the whole air on that floor would have to have been 2000 degrees and 2000 degrees for atleast 2 hours and then we would only see minor shrinkage start to happen

and we know that was not the case none burned anywhere near 2 hours did they?/

and steel only shrinks where heat is applied and yeas i have done plenty of research on the subject of thermo dynamics friend

let me explain it agin the hotest temperature recorded that day was 1750!!
do you guys not get that fact ??

all the steel was rated without any fire proofing to be raised to a temperature of 2000 degrees and could have been that temperature for over 2 hours before any shrinkage even begun to effect the steel and any shrinkage would have not been enough to snap any welds ,

the filler metal of the welds them selves where rated at 2400 degrees befor their structural integrady would have been effected

the metal used was 6010 filler welding rods and 7018 cover rods
both welding rods used where stronger than any of the steel used in all 7 buildings and the steel was some of the best in the world at the time of construction

thermal expansion effecting the floors is a joke as far as thermodynamis gose , each floor was an acre in size (a football field) that means you do realize right that each floor a whole acre full of air would hhave had to been superheated to 2000 degrees or better right .

and since the hottest temp was only 1750

its THERMODYNAICLY imposable do you not get that??

so why dont you do some of your own research ive done plenty


1750 is well under (250 degrees lower) 2000 and a 1000 degrees under its melting temperatures

so agin i have no opinion on wether there was explosives used, dosent matter to me

WHO or what brought all 7 buildings down that day i dont care

because first, all i want to know is from the official story says fire weakend the steel

well thermodynamics tells us absolutly noway in hell could that be true

there was also molten steel found that day, it was filmed pouring out of the buildings and found on the ground by firemen ,and thermodynamics tells us thats absolutly imposable also

so agin i have no clue if it was the easter bunny explosives, DEW,(direct energy wepons)thermite ,or small nuke bombs ,

but what i know to be fact fire (all fire where open air flames no flame was a controlled burn , and no open air flame could ever i mean ever reach 2000 , so the fire seen that day had nothing to do with any weakening of anyof the steel that day

at best it just became very very hot and charred and black

AND THAT IS A THERMODYNAMIC FACT.






[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 10:10 PM by pteridine
reply to post by lycopersicum


Lyco,
This is a response to your earlier response to me. Based on your spelling, grammar, and misuse of words, I conclude that English is not your native language and so I will try to explain things carefully. Thermodynamics and metallurgy do say that the fires were hot enough to affect the steel. They did not melt it, but they weakened it and caused it to expand against itself and ultimately fail.
Note that steel expands with temperature and does not shrink. In your own words, "that is a thermodynamic fact."
WTC#7 was a building built over another building and met the building codes at the time it was constructed but, I am told, would not meet present day codes. I will search for written references. It was not a bunker, at all. The building it was built over was a Con Edison substation that distributed power to Lower Manhattan. It was a bunker of sorts, based on its description.
wtc.nist.gov...
This document, published in November of 2008, shows the floor layouts and structural diagrams ofWTC#7 and describes the Con Edison building construction. It also describes possible failure modes. You should note that explosive demolitions were considered and the document contains the details of the study.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 10:12 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by ANOK
What happens when an object falls on another of equal mass? Does it continue its path through the object? Or does it either stop due to resistance, or fall off the side of the object it hit?


That depends on many more variables than just mass.

Originally posted by ANOK
And the more mass there is the more resistance it imparts. But again this is a mute point because nothing fell on the buildings, nothing was added to it that hadn't always been there.


So are you a no-planer or do you believe that those 757s loaded with fuel were always in there?

Originally posted by ANOK
You could completely sever ALL the columns around it's circumference and the top would still NOT fall through the rest of the building.


\What's your source for that?

Originally posted by ANOK
You keep claiming that the collapses were "symmetrical". What is this claim based on besides the fact that you've heard other people say it?


You know what symmetrical means right? It means all 4 corners of the buildings dropped at the same time.


Please provide an example of a non-symmetrical building collapse.

Originally posted by ANOK
NEAR free fall is not the same as free fall. There was resistance so stop claiming there wasn't.


OH OK so it's down to your refusal to see common sense. The buildings could have taken twice as long to collapse, it would still be too fast.


That sounds like an opinion. Source, please.

Originally posted by ANOK
Show me ANY building in history that has collapsed at anything close to free-fall speed without help.

Originally posted by ANOKThe few seconds faster than free-fall could be put down to simply air resistance, because it sure didn't meet any resistance from it's undamaged structure.


Wrong. The speed at which the collapses progressed was SLOWER than the falling debris outside the tower which was subject to air resistance. So air wasn't the only thing resisting collapse.

Originally posted by ANOK
All 3 buildings, all four corners fell at the same time, or within seconds of each other. This is only possible when ALL supports fail equally. If only one columns remains standing the building will not collapse symmetrically, demolition 101.


Source for this claim?


What's the highest level physics course you've completed with a passing grade? Your understanding of physics is certainly flawed. Since you don't seem to care what I think, why don't you discuss your thoughts with a physics professor........unless you think they're all "in on it".

[edit on 17-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 10:45 PM by lycopersicum
reply to post by pteridine


sorry for spelling, and yes i am quit aware metal expands when heated

but read the laws of thermodynamics


en.wikipedia.org...

so acording to this and the facts of the temperatures recorded that day where only pockets of fire where recorded at (1750) most never reached hotter then 1600 degrees average temps where 1250 and 1300 degrees here is some more facts on flames (www.doctorfire.com...)

so unless every beam was super heated to 2000 degrees it cant happen im sorry i didnt make the laws of thermodynamics

so according to the first and second laws, the other steel beams attached to the steel beams in contact with the fire, would have pulled all heat away to fast to have reach its fatigue temperature (the steel was way way to thick and dissipated the heat to quickly ) this is caused by thermal equilibrium(en.wikipedia.org...)

so theres no way shape or form could an uncontrolled burn of any kind to have been able to effect the steel to create a full collapse

do you even realize the energy needed to heat a full acre of air to 2000 degrees??

aviation fuel is 2/5ths kerosene (en.wikipedia.org...) ( look at its open air burn temp its less then 600 degrees )its BTU factor is way way to low (max temp for aviation fuel is 1500 degrees in a controlled burn of a injected fuel system

BTU is BTU everything has a BTU factor (everything has built in energy and can only release that energy and cant make up more energy outa thin air )

there was not one controlled burn of any kind that day


and this link explains the build quit well

www.wtc7.net...



[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 17-1-2009 by lycopersicum]


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 11:08 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Gonenuts


lol....ah yes, I have run into yet another individual that thinks the Pentagon has trillions of dollars stuff away in piggy banks. Hate to break it to you, but it does not. You can choose to accept the facts or you can choose to remain ignorant.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 11:24 PM by Seymour Butz
Originally posted by lycopersicum

1-and as far as thermo expansion, you do realize the fire was not hot enough that was recorded that day to cause any shrinkage of any kind

2- on the 110,000 psi construction steel used in the construction of all the towers with WTC7 being the strongest built building of all 7 buildings

3-2000 degrees for atleast 2 hours and then we would only see minor shrinkage start to happen

4-and steel only shrinks where heat is applied and yeas i have done plenty of research on the subject of thermo dynamics friend

5-all the steel was rated without any fire proofing to be raised to a temperature of 2000 degrees and could have been that temperature for over 2 hours

6-before any shrinkage even begun to effect the steel and any shrinkage would have not been enough to snap any welds ,

7-the metal used was 6010 filler welding rods and 7018 cover rods

8-both welding rods used where stronger than any of the steel used in all 7 buildings

9-would hhave had to been superheated to 2000 degrees or better right .

10-so why dont you do some of your own research ive done plenty

11-because first, all i want to know is from the official story says fire weakend the steel

12-well thermodynamics tells us absolutly noway in hell could that be true

13-there was also molten steel found that day, it was filmed pouring out of the buildings and found on the ground by firemen

14-,and thermodynamics tells us thats absolutly imposable also

15-and no open air flame could ever i mean ever reach 2000 , so the fire seen that day had nothing to do with any weakening of anyof the steel that day

16-AND THAT IS A THERMODYNAMIC FACT.



1- when you heat steel, it doesn't shrink, it expands. Griff - who also questions thermal expansion, and is a structural engineer to boot - did a calc and got something like a 4" growth on the 40' floor beam in question in WTC 7. This indicates that all your spouting about "thermodynamic facts" means nothing, since you obviously don't know a thing about this simple thermodynamic fact. We'll be revisiting this later.

2- the towers had SOME steel that was 110 ksi, but the core columns were all A36 - 36 ksi, and A42 - 42ksi. The ext columns were many different grades, ranging from A36 to A110. I suggest you do some research on the subject before you make this mistake again. I suggest this truther site: 911research.wtc7.net...

3- where'd you get this little gem from? And again with the shrinkage?

4- obviously, you aren't telling the truth here about your research efforts

5- the assemblies were rated for 2 hours, not the individual steel elements. this is Kevin Ryan's claim, which has been so thoroughly debunked that you won't even find the hardcore truthers making this claim anymore

6- again with the shrinkage?

7- hey, you got something right!

8- but then you post this without thinking about how it relates to your claim that the towers were constructed from 100 ksi steel. 7018 has a yield strength of 70ksi, and 6010 has a yield strength of 60 ksi. Doesn't this therefore debunk your claim that it was stronger than the steel that you claim was 110 ksi? And ayways, only the core columns were welded in the towers, the ext columns had individual 3 story units welded together, but they were ultimately bolted together. But to get back to the welding, the core columns were welded to only 1/2 depth, photos are available after the collapse that prove this fact. So if you weld A36 steel - 36 ksi yield - with 7018 to 1/2 depth, then the weld is as strong as the columns, right? Or is it? What happens when the the welded area transitions back to the base A36 steel again? You now have a column that has connections that ULTIMATELY are 1/2 depth of the base column steel and thus are only ~1/2 the strength of the columns themselves. The only way to make the connection as strong as the column is to weld to full depth. This is why the core columns broke at the welds.

9- so what strawman are you trying to construct here? Why have you grabbed onto 2000F as some magical number that must be reached? It's been proven that you don't know a thing about thermodynamics already, so why would anyone believe what you have to say NOW without a whole lot of backup? Preferably from something other than a truther site - I would suggest a fire engineering firm like ARUP.com

10- again, it's been thoroughly proven that you haven't, since you believe that heat shrinks steel

11- yep

12- it's been proven that you know nothing about thermodynamics. Quit trying to frame your arguements using it, since you've gotten everything wrong about the subject.

13 -really? I thought that big gripe from truthers is that this was never thoroughly investigated? So you have proof then that you can provide to everybody here. Please don't provide somebody's opinion, or their statement. Provide the investigative proof of this, or face the reality that you don't have it.

14- again, you know nothing about the subject. It's been proven by your own statements. Are you getting it yet?

15- so you're saying that steel is not affected AT ALL below 2000F? Where did you find this bit of info? Does it come from your extensive research about thermodynamics? Well, it's been repeatedly proven beyond all possible doubt that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Therefore, anything you say is based on absolutely nothing but false information.

16- YOU'VE PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY KNOW ABSOLUTELY DIDDLY SQUAT ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS.

YOU FAIL........



reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 11:24 PM by lycopersicum
reply to post by Intothepitwego


very cool videos

thanks for posting those

i havent seen those yet


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 11:45 PM by ANOK
reply to post by Intothepitwego


Hey thanx for posting those.

I'm tired of arguing this point with him. He keeps asking the same crap I've already covered over and over.

He's either playing games, or just doesn't understand basic physics and how it relates to structures.

WTC 7 fell with a precision you just don't get from 'natural' collapses.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by ANOK]
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags