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.

 

You know what debate me 9/11 was not an inside job.

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Now keep in mind I understand I am speculating but my thought is that these buildings were not as structurally sound as the builders and engineers claimed they should be.


A few questions for you then:

1. How does this coincide with the OS when the NIST report says the opposite? Did the NIST lie when they stated this?

I honestly don't know if they lied or they didn't take the investigation down that route.
They would need to have access to original plans which does not necessarily mean a lot.
Then they would need to know how the building was REALLY built and compare the real build to the original plans.
It would be nice to run metalurgic analysis on supportive structure pre and post collapse throughout the building and compare.

Of course there are many more things to consider but you get the idea.


2. Why was the 9/11 Commission's goal NOT to throw any blaim around when it came to the design/construction of the buildings? Rockefellers maybe?

Maybe for the same reason Bush hasn't been charged with approving torture.
Maybe there are other buildings built sub par and admitting the WTC's were built sub par would create panic, kill property value, etc...

Again all complete speculation on my part.




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 
So the the JUDEN signs and stars of David are all about the Bolsheviks, don't get me wrong I know Hitler hatred of them as well, but the the point was the specific campaign that was pointed at the Jews had nothing to do with one extreme act they were blamed for which is what I was responding too..

Back on topic =)..

Thats for that link to be honest I did not know about that with the WTC bombing, but it still shows it was a terrorist target , perhaps the FBI allowed it to happen, which is certainly possible with 9/11 but that is not an inside job, its something completely different, and I am certainly open to this theory. Not just the 1000s of people involved needed to do this. See that make more sense.

They didnt plan it, execute it , blow up buildings.. But they allowed it to happen. Now maybe you have a real conspiracy. again IMHO



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Then they would need to know how the building was REALLY built and compare the real build to the original plans.


Since the NIST had subpoena power, why do you think this was avoided?


It would be nice to run metalurgic analysis on supportive structure pre and post collapse throughout the building and compare.


Yes, it would have been pretty prudent. Why didn't they?



Maybe there are other buildings built sub par and admitting the WTC's were built sub par would create panic, kill property value, etc...

Again all complete speculation on my part.


Welcome to the world of the Cter.


Because to cover such a mess, you need a conspiracy.

dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
They didnt plan it, execute it , blow up buildings.. But they allowed it to happen. Now maybe you have a real conspiracy. again IMHO


My personal belief is that they didn't even allow it. Curious huh?

What I believe is that we got hit harder than what we are told and a lot was covered up. No inside job (well maybe a few well placed individuals).

But, that's just my opinion. I can't really see hundreds of people perpetuating this, but I can see thousands of people wanting to keep it hush-hush. If you know what I mean?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
Then they would need to know how the building was REALLY built and compare the real build to the original plans.



Since the NIST had subpoena power, why do you think this was avoided?

That information probably doesn't even exist. The plans might show what material was supposed to be used but probably not what really used.


It would be nice to run metalurgic analysis on supportive structure pre and post collapse throughout the building and compare.



Yes, it would have been pretty prudent. Why didn't they?

I haven't had a chance to re-read through this but here ya go. I'll get back to you more on this later.

www.scribd.com...



Maybe there are other buildings built sub par and admitting the WTC's were built sub par would create panic, kill property value, etc...

Again all complete speculation on my part.



Welcome to the world of the Cter.


Because to cover such a mess, you need a conspiracy.

dictionary.reference.com...


Maybe I should clarify my position regarding 9/11.
From what I've seen I do not believe the US government planned or purposefully participating in 9/11. I do believe 9/11 happened due to a combination of massive incompetence and the lack of inter agency communication.
I believe that the towers were not built to the standards they were claimed to be built to. Time is money and things can either slip pass an inspector or ignored, to keep a project moving.
Is anyone here in the construction business? If so, can you attest to this?
I'm a builder and one of my companies biggest sources of income is repairs to bring buildings UP to code that never should have passed inspection in the first place (ie non wrapped buildings, missing fire walls, improper attic ventilation, improperly run pipes and ducts, etc..)



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FightLies
9-11 was an inside job.

just look at the facts and use common sense its not hard.

and if you haven't seen these yet.....

911 loose change
www.youtube.com...

Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11 - part 1 (i give two thumbs up)
www.youtube.com...

Al Qaeda – The Database
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Our leaders behind 9-11 betrayed us plain and simple, and I dont know about you guys but that dosen't sit well with me.


[edit on 14-1-2009 by FightLies]


And don't forget the most amazing piece of evidence of all...
www.venganza.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe I should clarify my position regarding 9/11.
From what I've seen I do not believe the US government planned or purposefully participating in 9/11. I do believe 9/11 happened due to a combination of massive incompetence and the lack of inter agency communication.
I believe that the towers were not built to the standards they were claimed to be built to. Time is money and things can either slip pass an inspector or ignored, to keep a project moving.


We are not far apart in our beliefs.



Is anyone here in the construction business?


Yes: Civil/structural engineer here.


If so, can you attest to this?


Yes. We can only inspect so much and we can only spend as little time on a project watching the workers as is allotted in the agreement (as you point out: Time is money). We rely on the contractors to be skilled in what they do. That is why we have our own bid list through experience (contractors whom we've worked with in the past and have proven to be competent in what they do and claim to do).


I'm a builder and one of my companies biggest sources of income is repairs to bring buildings UP to code that never should have passed inspection in the first place (ie non wrapped buildings, missing fire walls, improper attic ventilation, improperly run pipes and ducts, etc..)


Looks like we are in the same type of work. Only I fix the building's envelope that was built incorrectly.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hey Griff thanks for the info. You said we weren't far off in our opinions. I'd like to know yours if you don't mind ?

Also, it's good to talk with someone who understands the realities involved in building and that sometime they differ from how things are supposed to be built. I've mentioned this in other threads and have been told that it just doesn't happen



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am talking about a = 9.8m/s^2. PE = KE.

I know those buildings were demolitions for that reason. I have explained this very clearly.


This should actually be the end-all/be-all last statement ever made in these threads.


But, I'm positive that some will argue. jthomas? Seymour?


Sure thing.

Care to refute Bazant's papers?

He shows why troofers have it all wrong with their interpretations of what happened.

Impress me. Take the challenge.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Griff
 


Hey Griff thanks for the info. You said we weren't far off in our opinions. I'd like to know yours if you don't mind ?


I differ from day to day but what I have come to conclude is that the skeptics are right. For this to be a total inside conspiracy is way too much.

As far as the towers collapsing...I don't know what happened. The OS can't be debunked that easily IMO.


Also, it's good to talk with someone who understands the realities involved in building and that sometime they differ from how things are supposed to be built. I've mentioned this in other threads and have been told that it just doesn't happen


The one thing I commend NIST on is their recommendation for all building managers to have the construction documents on file. By law. This includes as-builts as well as design.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Care to refute Bazant's papers?


OK. Bazant disregards the crushing of the intact buildings on their descent. Is that enough?

Remember....in a 'natural collapse", PE CANNOT equal KE. If it does, there is something wrong.

Next?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thetruth777
 

I'll debate you, but I'll only do it within the confines of the ATS debate forum.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

OK. Bazant disregards the crushing of the intact buildings on their descent. Is that enough?

Remember....in a 'natural collapse", PE CANNOT equal KE. If it does, there is something wrong.



LMAO.

Yeah, that's a real rigorous debunking you've done there. I really didn't expect anything different, which is sad.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

"Merely to get convinced of the inevitability of gravity driven progressive collapse, further
analysis is, for a structural engineer, superfluous. Further analysis is nevertheless needed to
dispel false myths"

Looks like he was referring to you.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ShAuNmAn-X
 


Holy smokes....where the heck have you been man?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

I've been around I just chose to avoid the 9/11 forum for a while.

OP- My debate challenge is still open BTW.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Laugh all you want. Then when you're done, explain in your own words how PE=KE is achieved in a natural collapse all the while crushing (expelling energy) the whole way down.

Please. Then I can have a good laugh.


I'll get you started:

PE=mgh

KE=1/2mv^2

mgh=1/2mv^2

the mass cancels out.

gh=1/2v^2

9.83m/s^2(~38m...approximately 10 stories)=0.5v^2

v^2=747 m^2/s^2

v=~27m/s

How does the roof drop at 27 m/s for 2 seconds? That's nearly 1/3 the height of the building. Explain that without any loss of the energy to cause collapse.





[edit on 1/23/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

How does the roof drop at 27 m/s for 2 seconds? That's nearly 1/3 the height of the building. Explain that without any loss of the energy to cause collapse.



From NIST:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

So they accounted for it.

Also note that this is NOT for the entire building, nor does Chandler claim that. This is for the NW corner only, where the interior columns had already collapsed, as evidenced by the penthouse descending, etc.

So there's nothing fishy about this, unless you or someone else choose to do an analysis about how much resistance could be expected. I suspect no CTer will, but rather, an interested engineer will do this and prove there's nothing wrong with maths... at which point he will be accused of being a shill for NIST, etc......



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Also note that this is NOT for the entire building, nor does Chandler claim that. This is for the NW corner only, where the interior columns had already collapsed, as evidenced by the penthouse descending, etc.


Given that buckled columns still give some resistance, how do you and NIST account for this? Free-fall acceleration equates to zero resistance. The only way to achieve free-fall is to have that resistance severed. How did this happen?

[edit on 1/23/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Given that buckled columns still give some resistance, how do you and NIST account for this?



NIST says negligible resistance.

What does that mean? I'm not sure.

Do you think the video Chandler used and/or the video editing software he used give good enough resolution to make an accurate examination?

What if it's not, and the amount it is slowed down can't be seen?

What then?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Given that buckled columns still give some resistance, how do you and NIST account for this?



Thought I'd make another comment about this.

In the other thread about the plane going through the ext columns, you mention welds being the weak point and breaking, etc.

Why do you believe that the columns must buckle, in order for it to fail? Why wouldn't weld/bolt failure be the "energy sink". How much LESS does it take to fail these?

Also, there's something I remember about the KE and how the energy is squared.. or something similar. Wouldn't that mean that a LARGE amount of KE could be absorbed, and still not be discernable in a youtube?




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join