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.
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?
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?
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.
It would be nice to run metalurgic analysis on supportive structure pre and post collapse throughout the building and compare.
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.
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
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..)
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]
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.
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..)
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?
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 ?
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
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Care to refute Bazant's papers?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Griff
Given that buckled columns still give some resistance, how do you and NIST account for this?
Originally posted by Griff
Given that buckled columns still give some resistance, how do you and NIST account for this?