It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 27
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:34 PM
>> Continued

But I'm trying to avoid having to depend upon too much PROOF -- I'm endeavoring to argue only the logic based upon the video and the structure. Even with the Dueling heat vs. steel strength discussions, even IF there was enough heat -- the collapse could not have occurred that way (according to me) and the core could not have fallen WITH OR BEFORE the floors as it did. If the floors pulled down the core -- well, it fell WAY TOO FAST, and it's hard to believe that the building got heavier just because it was collapsing -- ERGO, there was nothing to pull down the core.

Curtain wall pulls in and floors collapse on one level. The collapsing floor pulls in the curtain wall on floor below -- and since it was designed like a bridge, that at least allows for the lack of support we saw from the outer wall. However, the following floors are propped up, as well as suspended -- for this to continue, we have to have floors buckle with NO SUPPORT from the I-Beams. Meaning -- that there would have been resistance to ANY buckling from the floors from the vertical supports.

Not to mention the speed of the collapse, requires that the core would have to go first -- since it happened at free-fall speed. But, don't trust me that I didn't just parrot that. NIST officially admits freefall speed. I hesitate to quote the NIST on the NIST -- being that they are so disreputable. We seem to be treating a particular BushCo agency as gospel. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the FDA had been helping drug companies sell shoddy products. That the EPA was helping polluters. I guess I'm imagining that we have Salmonella in our peanut butter because the Bush administration didn't think having all these inspectors was good for business.

Nope. Despite evidence to the contrary -- we can BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE NIST SAYS. Because, even though we've witnessed incompetence and/or corruption at all the other agencies -- no reason to believe that the NIST isn't perfect, just because it alone is the alibi for the Bush administration.

>> My dislike for Bush occurred before 9/11-- because that family has been crooked a LONG time. My HATE For BushCo kind of simmered for a few weeks after 9.11 because I was immediately suspicious. When Karl Rove used the whole thing to start bashing decent Liberals who'd been supporting the president, and these scum pushed through the Patriot Act (which they'd written before 9/11), it boiled over to real hatred. I am unashamed of that.

How many fallacies do I need to point to in your statement? Of course, I don't have a time stamp, and a URL to PROVE that I made these conclusions on my own.

>> I never seen more money and organization of websites to defend an administration before -- it reminds me of the Anti-Global warming debate, or even the Big Tobacco debate.

>> Oh, and I found this gem on the 9/11 timeline; the ONLY reasonable excuse for WTC 7 going down, is that Guilliani's Bunker/Command center for disasters, has a 6,000 gallon fuel tank to keep power running during a disaster (but no way to power the elevators in the building). So, the only excuse, once again, for another NeoCon leader not being a traitor, is that he is an imbecile. Many discuss how idiotic the shelter and its location is. But, again, gasoline isn't going to make it hot enough and we didn't see huge fires from Building 7.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by LambCheops
Yeah, instead of spending the money on dismantling old military aircraft, we could sell the outdated aircraft to demolition companies to take down buildings. They would need to make sure that all cloth and paper items are removed from the planes before the flight because they would surely survive (passports and bandanas).

Thanks, I needed cheering up after wasting so much time on this nonsense today.

>> Everywhere we actually investigate, we find that the BushCo was lying, and the assumed BAD THINGS by the rest of us, seemed to be hats made of more substantial things than tin foil.

I'm thinking, that "tin-foil-hat" is going to be a phrase in the future that means; "inconvenient truth."

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:41 PM
I have tons of pictures for you guys to check out.

Picture of the core during construction



Perimeter Walls


The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds. The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth, speaking on behlf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially "a steel beam 209' deep." Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.


FEMA diagram of a section of the floor system


Hat trusses during construction


Foundation "bathtub" plan


Information on WTC7 which is where Giuliani's Emergency Command Center was located

Several pictures of WTC rubble that seem to show bomb damage?

The same box beam from three different angles

Source for above pictures

There are picture galleries at this site with more pictures, but does anyone else see evidence of bomb damage here? Go to the site to see commentary on the possible location of these beams while the building was standing and explanations on the damage we see.

I am curious to hear what other posters here think of these pictures as evidence of explosives being used.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Well, If the descending parts are pulling down the floors -- that would mean the curtain wall.

It would mean both.

OK, we can't KNOW for a fact if the chicken (curtain wall) or egg (floor) came first (being pro-evolution, I'd say the egg -- but whatever), the problem is here, ONE of them has to precede the other. But, at free-fall, they both go simultaneously with the core (I'd say the core might be DNA or something to stretch the metaphor).

The curtain wall has to pull inward to fail -- which means the floor has to buckle inward and allow it to move. That could have gone for 2 floors and then you'd meet resistance strong enough to hold up the building -- since that's what it had been doing before the impact.

The curtain wall doesn't lose strength, until it loses the cantilever of the flooring that is pushing it out.

I don't think the floors would push out on the ext. I'd imagine that it would be designed to be neutral force.

Well, the point is, we have a complete failure of the curtain wall. To "unhinge" the wall and make it NOT resist the downward force of the building -- it has to move out -- rip away the bolts, or it has to move INTO THE FLOOR ABOVE. I don't think it's neutral, because the floor is suspended between curtain wall and core -- and I-Beams strengthen this but are not the sole support -- allowing for the open floor plan. However, when the curtain wall is collapsing inward - it is pushing right into the floor above -- if he floor above isn't already collapsing, it is going to hold and bear SOME load.

The floor HAS TO, go first, if we accept the pancake theory


The whole "buckling due to heat" is nonsense.

Engineers disagree with this. They have explained how a temp of only 250C over a period of an hour results in column failure, in any building. This is widely accepted as true among the engineering community.

And yet we have the structure in China totally engulfed in flame and other buildings as well to look at.

We also have the floor below, with i-beams supporting the floor above -- they did not get hot and would not buckle unless those beams were cut.

So even if the curtain wall implodes and you lose outward pressure on the curtain wall on one floor -- this WOULD collapse floors above it -- it doesn't collapse the lower floors.

I'm not real sure what you're saying here, so I'll just say that floor failure leads to column failure

Ah, but then we'd be resisting the collapse more. The column is at the same time or BEFORE the rest for most of the building.

The inward buckling of the curtain wall and everything we saw-- including the core going first

I saw the ext columns failing slightly ahead of the cores.

Column's or curtain wall?
At least for the top of the building, the CORE started slumping down before the rest. I fail to see how the core could have been that damaged by a plane crash when the only really hard parts are the engines.

After the impact point -- it would of course, be the outer wall falling ahed of the cores --and for those to fall, the floors would have to go first -- as I think I established. But I don't see how the floors buckle and allow for the curtain wall to come inward. I SEE them bending on some parts of the video, but the vertical supports had to be gone. They would have gone straight down AFTER resisting and slowing the collapse more.

they would have pre-weakened and put shaped charges on the last few floor supports so that THEY COULD BUCKLE.

This could indeed work, but you have to first discount accepted engineering concensus about columns buckling.... and THEN come to this conclusion. But I reject that line of thinking.

Why? You know, there are people rejecting the findings of thousands of Climate scientists. If they can all be wrong, then a few hundred engineers, perhaps given the wrong data by NIST could be wrong as well. It's funny that many of the Global Warming deniers, use a theory that large numbers of professionals in their field could be wrong -- the same people saying that large numbers of experts are never wrong.

>> Propaganda does work on otherwise reasonable people and I know a lot of commonly held truths that are dead wrong. However, I think we basically have to say that we 100% trust the NIST and all the other investigators that the Bush administration put on the WTC --and I just don't. Call it prior experience. NIST officially admits freefall speed.

Again, a good investigation could prove one way or the other -- 1/2 of the way vs. all the way.

Yep, but I don't think it would have made much difference. Instead of welds breaking, something else would have happened - maybe buckling.

It still means that for 100+ feet, you've got a solid tube

No, they were in ~ 30' sections - truck length. How would you get 100'+ lengths through busy streets?

I don't see that things HAVE to be limited to truck length for projects like this. There is a port nearby, and I've seen 100' length wide loads being hauled on the Interstate before -- usually with a car in front and behind with flashing amber lights. And of course, mobile homes that are bigger. As well as pipes and electrical towers.

>> I'm looking at the construction, but it doesn't say how long. It's been a while since I combed through these details. It looks like you may be right about 30'. However, I won't concede that you can't ship bigger on the roads

so there isn't enough force to bring it down without resistance[

It fell at about 40% less than freefall acceleration. So there was resistance. Most in the TM accept this now.

Actually, not really: NIST officially admits freefall speed-after lying about it.

and you'd see the core sticking up at least at the base

There was uncollapsed core at the end. Some folks survived the collapses in the core.


posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:59 PM
Well, now I found some evidence for a bit of the South Tower, surviving in the smoke; here So, I'll agree that there was some core there -- a little less than I'd predict would be left, but the lack of any core standing up from most all the photos I'd seen bothered me.

OK, so now we are moving from impossible to highly preposterous. I still want that "fair trial" we deserve. ::wink::

According to my brother, who is a very gifted welder (and can tell you, a lot of welds are shoddy), welds ARE stronger than the original steel -- if done right.

So am I. Again, the BEAD can be stronger if done to full depth, but the ASSEMBLY cannot be made stronger by this. Ask your brother. Also ask him his opinion about 1/2 depth welds, and where they should break under side pressure.

OK -- yes, the WELD is 2x stronger but not the assembly, but you can agree, that a good weld is NOT on steel is NOT like other materials making it weaker, right? I've seen cars welded together -- and they won't break there, unless someone just did spot welding -- which happens. It depends on an investigation of how well the seams were done. Neither of us can know for sure -- can we agree on that? Either way is possible, and it all depends upon how well the building was put together and how poorly inspection was -- which is not a design flaw.

Um, I'm imagining a bunch of metal tubes, which held the entire building for years. You don't have more downward force on the core when it is collapsing.

Yes you do. It's the difference between holding a static weight for yrs vs halting the same weight in motion. You need to understand the difference.

I do. That's why I keep going back to 2x or more above load capacity. If you drop the top 20 floors 10' as we assume happened at the impact site -- then that isn't enough to totally crush the core. It would definitely condemn the building -- I don't disagree with that. The points made about the fire, ignore that no fire weakened the floors below.

We can argue about how much steel gets weakened in a fire. But no steel buildings before or since WTC have collapsed due to fire.

Even more than that, it was just two floors. When the top floors collapsed, they were turning to rubble. So the core must have collapsed where the impact was -- IF it wasn't cut at the very base of the building.

The top floors turned to dust -- it didn't look like the top 20 floors went in one big clump onto the impact layers -- they looked like they were being demolished in series. If they weren't one piece, than the leading edge of that collapse would have been one floor in weight. So, below the impact site -- you have at most 3 floors of force, before the rest of it hits; "bam, bam, bam,.." et cetera. The point is, there was not enough resistance, it fell too quickly.

4- correct. But what happens is you now have an unbraced column that is more prone to buckling, or breaking welds from side impacts. This is the point you're not seeing.

Lost track of this point. What were we discussing? Anyway, I THINK it might have been vertical vs. horizontal forces on the core. It looks like there is a lot of diagonal cross-bracing in the photos of construction.

I'd say if there were ANY take-away for future construction, it would be to avoid curtain walls that require horizontal forces to hold weights. If you redid this design, you'd be running I-beams up between a lot of those curtain walls.

The other take-away, is to never let war-mongering Republicans get the reigns of power again. But that's just me and my reading of history.

No. I'm not saying a building crashing down can't BEND and tear the steel

Sure it can.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Seymour Butz] Sorry, all this typing; I meant to say that; "it WOULD bend and tear the steel" not create clean breaks and cuts. So it is important to investigate the steel for cuts and shaped charges or signs of melting. There was NEVER, EVER anything hot enough in that building to melt steel. We are just debating (amongst the adults) if there was enough weakening going on.

And really, it depends upon not just design, but if things were done up to code. I recognize (listening to an Engineering buddy of mine), that MOST buildings are not put up to code. They kind of depend on insurance and blaming some poor shmoe engineer who rubber-stamped construction so they can save millions and point lawsuits at the underpaid engineer who approved it. Hint: if you don't approve buildings, you don't keep your job.

So again, it would require a real investigation that we cannot determine with all these third-parties speculating on the web.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by djeminy

I knew it wouldn't take too long before someone would pop up and yell holograms. Holograms were not used in 9/11. I've seen many impressive 3-d effects, which are typically called holograms but in actuality, are not.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that holograms were capable of being used in 9/11.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that they were used in 9/11.

1. There's no evidence to suggest that holograms were NOT capable of being used on 9/11.

There is also no evidence that the Borg didn't destroy the WTC's. Should we investigate for Borg activity too?
Actually, using negative logic doesn't work with any type of argument. For example, I can say, "prove god DOESN'T exist".
If you are making a claim that holograms were used, you would be responsible for presenting evidence of said claim. Of course you can't

2. There is certainly evidence to suggest that they could have been used on 9/11.

Nope. None at all. Prove me wrong and post it.
I'll give you a hint, first you must prove that the technology exists

The port-side engine on a 757 would have hit the same floor the woman is standing on,
who are visible on all close-up photos of the alleged impact hole. And of course it would also have hit the steel plate the floor is connected to, as can clearly be seen on the Purdue photo.

Note that the engine hangs under the wing!

Holograms are made of light and cannot cause physical damage so how was the damage to the buildings caused? Or are the buildings a hologram too?

one may even speculate that the alleged contours of the wings on the building, could
have been made by sophisticated laser technology, calibrated to hit and cut the exact
predetermined area simultaneously with a bomb of some unknown kind going off at
almost the same moment, but a fraction earlier.

One may also speculate that giant, invisible, flying, purple wombats hit the WTC towers.

Superimposed on this scenario, a high tech 3-D image of a plane becomes visible in
the sky and 'glides' toward the tower, penetrating the building at the predetermined
spot, after which the explosions take place and the laser cut be performed.

The wombat hypothesis sounds more reasonable

On the roof of an adjoining building, a high tech volume speaker system is used to mimic the sound of a 757 jet engine, and the deception is complete.

To start with the planes were 767's.
And I guess if you don't care about reality, you can make up anything you want to make it fit your hologram idea.

This of course is but pure speculation at this point, but please bear in mind that no
evidence exist to suggest that it couldn't possibly have happened in this way.

Horrible logic. This is completely baseless speculation.
You can't even show that any of this technology even exists.

Actually, it could have happened like this. The weird way the observed plane
penetrated the building, could give an indication in that direction.

Lets find out one way or the other!

Let's not. The hologram idea is dead and buried. Leave it be. If you insist on discussing it, at least goto the following thread and read the entire thing so you'll understand the basics of lasers, optics, and holographic technology.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by jfj123]

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Kratos1220

Good pictures -- great find!

I'd say that a lot of those pictures -- it's hard to tell. Any of the pretzel-bend steel columns and that "pinched one" near the top -- that's what I'd expect to see. The pinched one shows what real buckling is, and that steel doesn't "cut" or just snap, unless something else is going on.

The box-cut or clean break ones -- well, on the smaller i-beams, that could be severe sheer stress on a bad weld. You would need to test those, because a demolition charge would probably be at a joint, to hid what was being done, and because it makes the structure weaker.

Others do look cut -- but there could be the excuse that it was part of clean-up.

>> Good stuff, but we are stuck with something that cannot be resolved by dueling links. I don't see good proof of how something this solid was brought down SO FAST. It should have taken at least a minute. Nor how the fire and impact could have weakened it so much.

Again, must I add that the investigation was so curious, and the administration involved so dang corrupt? We will probably never see a trial.

It will be another Magic Bullet story like we had with JFK. The government, might have been covering up what they mob did, fearing a huge reprisal on Cuba, and what that might mean with a nuclear exchange with the USSR. But they also might have unwittingly covered up for other factions in the government working with the Mob. JFK and his brother certainly were doing a great job of bringing them down.

Now we have people, related to that mob, and bringing down our Constitution. We traded safety for Liberty.

At every step there are lies and coverups. Then "trust us" or "why are you helping the enemy?" If BushCo wasn't involved, they did a darn good impression of what guilty people do when obscuring the truth.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by djeminy

Look. One might assume that you are trying to make Truthers look bad. Whether or not holograms or a-bombs or whatever was used, the burden of proof seems to have been put on the people who want justice -- not the guilty in this country.

We have to prove leaders 95% guilty BEFORE we can get a trial.

I vote for a trial now. Where do I sign up?

No matter the validity or possibility of your claim, you should only be arguing things that can be stone, cold proven. The anti-Truth crowd which thinks we should not investigate the Bush administration (because that is all their argument really comes down to), will be pointing at each incorrect application of Big Foot or Chewbacca, and then with a broad brush, paint EVERY truther argument as being silly.

My point all along

During the huge and numerous protests during the Bush administration, the Media might show a small straggling group of 500 if they bothered to cover it at all. As a bonus, if someone were wearing a Pink tutu, while the rest were in business suits -- guess who got the interview?

What I'm saying is; don't be THAT GUY in the pink tutu.

Too late ! I think somebody has already joined the cult of John Lear

For the record, I'm all for another investigation and if you ever want to start a petition, I'll sign it.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by jfj123

You and djeminy are a good example of how a topic gets derailed.

You cannot prove or disprove holograms. Whether a real plane or not hit the towers, doesn't really effect whether or not the towers came down from a REAL plane strike.

It's theoretically possible to do a lot of things -- including bring down a steel building. However, other than the WTC there is no proof of that.

I'd stick with the provable.

And a hologram needs to project ONTO something, otherwise it isn't going to be opaque.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by jfj123


I don't know whether at some point, EVERY conversation could be classified as "feeding the trolls."

I'd donate good money for a trial of these SOBs. Google on the web and take your pick of things to sign up for, there are a lot of petitions. I'm pretty sure that there were some negotiations and talks before Obama took office -- he has said; "no investigations."

Not just of 9/11, but of war crimes, war profiteering. We had treason; outing a CIA operative -- which was really, destroying Brewster Jennings, a whole division dedicated to preventing WMD proliferation -- which, according FBI translator Siebel Edmunds, was something that the Bush investigation was also involved in.

So we have some pro-torture, war profiteering, traitorous bastards who are given the pass on an investigation into the alleged "spontaneous hole theory" -- the one where someone in your way is conveniently sprouting them, and you claim your gun was not involved.

Anti-truthers suggest that the Ground Crews would have seen something. Without training and tests on the steel, how could they? They are also busy dying from lies about air quality at the site, and are in a massive lawsuit against the FDA and the Bush administration.

>> So, we don't have evidence from a crime scene, all the witnesses are dead or in a lawsuit and therefore cannot testify. We have almost every former member of the Bush administration, dodging some private-sector lawsuit from someone.

Ever having a trial is less likely -- because of the NSA internal spying. Which I think, explains why Pelosi never brought forth impeachment. Only people who defy Bush, get burned by the wiretaps. Not that I like Bloggo from Chicago -- but, how did they get a recording of him trying to sell the Senator's position in the state, there was no corruption charge to start the wiretaps that I know of.

This is why we don't allow internal spying. It can be used to extort compliance from journalists, politicians, and people in the judicial system. It is probably the main reason, we will not get justice.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by jfj123

You and djeminy are a good example of how a topic gets derailed.

You cannot prove or disprove holograms.

Actually it's not that hard to disprove it but because he has made the claim they exist, it falls on him to prove his claim.

And a hologram needs to project ONTO something, otherwise it isn't going to be opaque.

Astute observation on your part !
Also a hologram is made of light and since it was light out on 9/11 when the planes impacted, the daylight would have washed out completely any hologram.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Maybe you're going at this wrong??
Maybe if we could get a trial for something that is more mainstream, such as the items you've mentioned, and something, anything, could be proven, you could go back and say, hey now will you take a second look at 9/11?

Just a thought as I would like to see the croneys in the bush administration prosecuted for other crimes at the very least.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I've done all my own research

Clearly you haven't:

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst I don't re-research every claim I make because that is tedious.

Typical "truth"er. How do you ever expect to learn the truth if researching it is "too tedious"?

Originally posted by verbal_assassin
Anyone want to explain why Larry Silverstien a Jew who owns the building said he was going to PULL the building?

Do your research, newbie:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull"

You're twisting his words into quite a knot, and your theory requires the FDNY to be involved.....good luck with that one.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by adam_zapple]

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:28 AM
It´s incredible. How can these people make SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS and expect to be taken seriously? I can´t believe it!!! We could be discussing the roll of aliens on 9/11 as well.

Talking about “bomb damage” to the steal beams? Where do you get that from?
Holograms? Please!!

TOO MANY assumptions without offering the tiniest bit of proof on anything. Just “hunches” and personal appreciations. Amazing!!!
If you can´t explain it, make up a conspiracy on it.
That´s why experts and engineers should be the ones giving us the explanations on the events of 9/11.
This is exactly what NIST does. And it´s the best we have so far.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:58 AM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to djeminy

Actually, you'd be more like the hired stone thrower. The provocateur.

I'm sure in the future, I will have to debate an anti-truther saying; "Truthers think that it was done with holograms -- LOL."

It isn't the strength of the strongest argument used, it is pointing to the weakest argument. This is the difference between reason and propaganda.

If you think that Truthers are idiots and fools -- you might be thinking about someone much like yourself, helping to throw rocks and make the protest look like a riot.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by VitriolAndAngst]

I'm truly surprised you can get yourself to write such unbelievable nonsense as above,
and same goes for your previous post addressed to me also.

Not surprising then, that you seems to have formed a warm close relationship with the
hapless 123!

You both 'conveniently' failed to acknowledge the clarification I came with, namely:

"This of course is but pure speculation at this point....".

Instead you Went on with the vitriol, in your eagerness to show the world how brilliant
and learned you both consider yourself to be. What vanity!

It will serve no good for me to respond to the various points you both came up with,
as I'm sure it will receive no intelligent and thoughtful hearing.

I obviously planted a seed in your mind, and in others too I hope.
I have no doubt that sooner or later it will germinate, judging from your responses, and
a little sprout will start to grow bigger and bigger.
You will naturally deny this, but to no avail I fear.

That's all folks!

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by djeminy

Not surprising then, that you seems to have formed a warm close relationship with the
hapless 123!

You both 'conveniently' failed to acknowledge the clarification I came with, namely:

"This of course is but pure speculation at this point....".

I believe I acknowledged that it was speculation. I believe I even called it COMPLETELY BASELESS SPECULATION.

Shut me up by answering my questions and proving I'm wrong. Post the technology and explain in detail how it works.

You've never even explained what your following post means

These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."

Do you even know what these technologies are/can be used for? If so, explain and please post a source.

Before you call me hapless, maybe you should understand the things of which you speak.
There is ZERO evidence to suggest that holograms were used in 9/11 and ZERO evidence that holograms could be used in the way you have suggested.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-And yet we have the structure in China totally engulfed in flame and other buildings as well to look at.

2-We also have the floor below, with i-beams supporting the floor above -- they did not get hot and would not buckle unless those beams were cut.

3-I fail to see how the core could have been that damaged by a plane crash when the only really hard parts are the engines.

4-Why? You know, there are people rejecting the findings of thousands of Climate scientists.

1- you're ignoring what the study said. It needs to be under 50-70% load. An unfinished building would be less. You're also ignoring different construction - steel framed vs reinforced concrete.

2-buckling is only needed for collapse initiation. After that, buckling and/or weld breaking accounts for all.

3- NIST estimates that only a few were cut, and a few more bent. Heat and buckling effects account for collapse initiation.

4- That's right, climate scientists are rejecting other CS's findings. there are virtually NO SE's disputing creep buckling.

PS- while this is a good discuaaion, I'd appreciate a little more brevity in your responses.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-I've seen cars welded together -- and they won't break there, unless someone just did spot welding -- which happens.

2-I do. That's why I keep going back to 2x or more above load capacity. If you drop the top 20 floors 10' as we assume happened at the impact site -- then that isn't enough to totally crush the core.

3-The points made about the fire, ignore that no fire weakened the floors below.

4-Lost track of this point. What were we discussing?

5-I'd say if there were ANY take-away for future construction, it would be to avoid curtain walls that require horizontal forces to hold weights. If you redid this design, you'd be running I-beams up between a lot of those curtain walls.

1- look close at the post a few above with all the photos. In the ones that show the ends clearly - the welds are to about 1/2 depth. This has a similar effect to your understanding about spot-welding.

2- 2-3x is reasonable. But the drop would have imposed an 8x force. The numbers don't lie. Opinions are worth little without numbers...

3- now you're getting close. fire weakening WAS necessary to initiate the collapses, since at that particular time, it was a static load. Once it got moving however, no fire weakening is necessary, cuz now it's a dynamic, or moving load.

4- brevity helps

5-this would be like the old style construction, where buildings are built out of multiple small boxes. This is the type of construction used in nearly all of the buildings that the TM points to when they say that no other building has collapsed from fire - which of course ignores the plane damage too.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:43 PM
The core beam was encased in CONCRETE. CONCRETE doesn't retain heat and therefore, no way in hell would it be hot enough to melt and weaken. Besides, if the FIRE WERE SO HOT, why did we see 20 different people waving their arm out the window? Wouldn't they burn to death? The initial explosion took care of most of the fuel. The building collapsed, all 3 of them due an implosion.

Which explains why people heard several explosion b4 the building collapsed into complete dust. Concrete turning into DUST in mid air = explosives.

Building crumbing and tipping over to the side, = weakening structure.

How did all 3 building collapse? I thought so. End of story. Inside job.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:06 PM

Originally posted by verbal_assassin
The core beam was encased in CONCRETE. CONCRETE doesn't retain heat

My concrete pizza stone disagrees with you.

top topics

<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in