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.

 

AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Correct me if I am wrong but it all happened 2001 thats when the demolition theories started S0 640 in 8 years OUT OFF a possible how many in the USA alone!
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has only been around for close to 3 years. You can't say 8 years if AE911T hasn't even been around that long. If AE911T had been around since the beginning, that number would be significantly higher.


Well if Architects/Engineers have had 5 yrs previous to the START date do YOU not think more than 640 would put their point across.
Also if you look closely at the collapse videos you will see the FLOORS above impact point on both buildings drop as one unit!!
Look closely at the videos of the south tower collapse you will see what i MEAN
Look at this video 2:30 or from 3:24 shows it best as 40,000+ tons drops!

www.youtube.com...

The tower could not withstand that dynamic load!




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


And as I've already said a few posts back, if you honestly think you can blow up a few floors up high in a building and think that that upper block of floors would crush the lower part all the way to the ground through the greatest resistance, then you should go travel around the world teaching demo companies how to do that because that's not how buildings collapse in the real world. Demo companies would pay you big bucks to teach them how to do this so they don't have to waste so much money in explosives and man-hours placing those explosives everywhere from top to bottom in a building.

And did you miss the quote I posted a few posts back from the CEO of Controlled Demolition, Inc. who said for those buildings to have fallen due to fire as the official story claims, in a manner that only well-placed explosives have ever accomplished, is a miracle?

In the real world, demo companies wire most high-rises like that from top to bottom. And after collapse has been initiated, explosives are set off on the lower floors as the building is coming down. The explosives that are being set off on the lower floors weaken the structure below so that it offers no resistance. Hence why we see these everywhere in both tower collapses:



You will only ever find those jets of dust/debris in controlled demolitions as they are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. If you think you can make something up to explain them away, that's fine but you'll never, ever see those jets of dust/debris in any other building collapse besides controlled demolition and I challenge you to prove me wrong.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


And as I've already said a few posts back, if you honestly think you can blow up a few floors up high in a building and think that that upper block of floors would crush the lower part all the way to the ground through the greatest resistance, then you should go travel around the world teaching demo companies how to do that because that's not how buildings collapse in the real world. Demo companies would pay you big bucks to teach them how to do this so they don't have to waste so much money in explosives and man-hours placing those explosives everywhere from top to bottom in a building.

And did you miss the quote I posted a few posts back from the CEO of Controlled Demolition, Inc. who said for those buildings to have fallen due to fire as the official story claims, in a manner that only well-placed explosives have ever accomplished, is a miracle?

In the real world, demo companies wire most high-rises like that from top to bottom. And after collapse has been initiated, explosives are set off on the lower floors as the building is coming down. The explosives that are being set off on the lower floors weaken the structure below so that it offers no resistance. Hence why we see these everywhere in both tower collapses:



You will only ever find those jets of dust/debris in controlled demolitions as they are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. If you think you can make something up to explain them away, that's fine but you'll never, ever see those jets of dust/debris in any other building collapse besides controlled demolition and I challenge you to prove me wrong.


Star to the above poster. Everything you said is right on.

You don't have to have an OUNCE of knowlegde in this stuff to see what really happened. You can hop on youtube and see TONS of videos just like the ones that the frames from the post above came from, and CLEARLY see the puffs of smoke from explosives going off, not to mention the countless eyewitnesses, inlcuding fire fighters, who all heard explosions just before the building(s) fell.

Also, it doesnt matter if "only" 640 people are standing up to say something. Even if ONE person stood up, and had all the evidence and proof, that is all it would take. 640 is phenomenal, and thats just AE.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The tower could not withstand that dynamic load!


I'd LOVE to see the proof you have to back that statement up.

[edit on 18/5/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


One of my favorite debunking points for 9/11 OS religious personnel is the recently discovered "intelligent air" that can only be found in WTC 1 and 2 on 9/11.

This concept of "intelligent air" has jets of air being pushed out from above by the falling top of the building. The air is clearly choosing its path way through the shafts on the way out of windows on specific floors far below the collapse zone.

I can't get an interview with IA (intelligent air) to determine why it choose to exit the building at those specific points. I have a feeling he/she decided not exit just below the collapse zone because it may have been hit on its ...errr head? so it decided to travel a lot farther down the towers before making its dramatic exit.

I mean after all, if you were air, would you want to be crushed?
I sure wouldn't!

In all seriousness, if you think that is air from a pancaking floor, well then you disagree with the official story because NIST states pancaking did not happen not only that the air wouldn't exit from specific points but from entire floor levels. Take two pieces of board, put some flour, baby powder or cornstarch on the bottom one and drop the one onto the board holding the flour. You will see exactly how the air is pushed out via the drop. Trust me, it isn't in specific points, via jets of air.

If you think the air is being pushed from the collapsing front, then your unaware of the physics of the squibs as can be read HERE. See above.

If you think the squibs are from explosive devices going off, then you have made that observation that can be seen in virtually every controlled demolition on the planet.

Great post btw, Bonez!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The tower could not withstand that dynamic load!


I'd LOVE to see the proof you have to back that statement up.

[edit on 18/5/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



Do you think that the building was designed to withstand 40,000+ tons of mass dropping I DONT THINK SO.
I am on building sites all the time mate I test building components sometimes to destruction WHAT DO YOU DO!!!
If you look again at the videos you will see what i mean!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




Bonez I suggest you look at the video link again and actually watch it see if you can actually see what happens then comment lets see if you spot something lets see how good you are!
You to swing dangler!

[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The tower could not withstand that dynamic load!


I'd LOVE to see the proof you have to back that statement up.

[edit on 18/5/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



Do you think that the building was designed to withstand 40,000+ tons of mass dropping I DONT THINK SO.
I am on building sites all the time mate I test building components sometimes to destruction WHAT DO YOU DO!!!
If you look again at the videos you will see what i mean!


I serve in the US military, but what I do is irrelevant to this discussion.

I have, however, seen the entire 2008 version of the AE 9/11 Truth presentation, and I will take those experts facts and professional knowledge as to what those buildings can really handle over your tests any day. In addition, you stating you do tests on building components proves nothing at all. Are you licensed? Do you have a degree? Can you provide evidence of your 'tests' so that others can verify those results?

Unfortunately I'm at work right now and cannot review the presentation, and here I am asking for proof when I cant even provide a simple link, but I will do so later this evening when I am home. I'm curious to know where you got the 40,000+ tons of mass from? Is that the supposed weight of one of the buildings above the plane crash site?

[edit on 19/5/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Here is a link to watch the FULL 2 hour presentation, I suggest EVERYONE watches it.

video.google.com...



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 




Each floor of the TOWERS were approx one acre in area the weight of each floor was approx 1500 tons look at number of floors above impact area on south tower 78-84 floor HIT so say 84 then 110 floors -84 = 26 floors 26x1500=39000 tons
Thats not including any items on each floor people desks etc etc or any euipment at upper levels for services lifts etc.
I hope thats ok for YOU!!!
Also its funny that the tower hit lower down ie the South tower collapsed just above impact point as SEEN on the video before the north tower which was hit earlier this also started to collapse just above the impact point you can see on the videos could the FACT that the LOADING above impact point on the south tower which was FAR GREATER be the reason it collapsed before the north tower. Cant be bothered to check height between floors say 10-12 minimum so 40,000+ tons drops 10-12 feet the building was not REPEAT not designed for that iirc someone here said the design could support about 6 times the floor load so ?
YOU DO THE MATHS!

PS what you do is relevent to this to many people on here have no idea of construction and like i say 8 yrs since this happened and 640 sign on to the demo theory. Out of how MANY structural engineers in the USA alone nevermind anywhere else in the world.

I have about 1600 engineers on the company list in 8yrs I still have to meet one that thinks this is a demo job!



[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 




Each floor of the TOWERS were approx one acre in area the weight of each floor was approx 1500 tons look at number of floors above impact area on south tower 78-84 floor HIT so say 84 then 110 floors -84 = 26 floors 26x1500=39000 tons
Thats not including any items on each floor people desks etc etc or any euipment at upper levels for services lifts etc.
I hope thats ok for YOU!!!
Also its funny that the tower hit lower down ie the South tower collapsed just above impact point as SEEN on the video before the north tower which was hit earlier this also started to collapse just above the impact point you can see on the videos could the FACT that the LOADING above impact point on the south tower which was FAR GREATER be the reason it collapsed before the north tower. Cant be bothered to check height between floors say 10-12 minimum so 40,000+ tons drops 10-12 feet the building was not REPEAT not designed for that iirc someone here said the design could support about 6 times the floor load so ?
YOU DO THE MATHS!

PS what you do is relevent to this to many people on here have no idea of construction and like i say 8 yrs since this happened and 640 sign on to the demo theory. Out of how MANY structural engineers in the USA alone nevermind anywhere else in the world.

I have about 1600 engineers on the company list in 8yrs I still have to meet one that thinks this is a demo job!



[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]


First of all, I'm not arguing with you about the weight of the building above the crash site, I was merely verifying that that is what you were talking about.

I dont think I could translate your next paragraph to save my life...and I dont mean that to be ignorant but you really should learn how to use proper punctuation. I have NO idea what you are trying to say.

The argument of how many engineers have signed on in said amount of years is fruitless. It doesnt matter. Its just a number. You arent going to convince anyone with a brain that you are right based on the amount of people who are contributing. For that matter, whomever you know, engineer OR architect wise, for whom you speak for to claim that none of them think this was a demo job, that statement is also pointless and proves absolutely nothing. Do THEY have the scientific evidence that AE has? You're argument holds no water whatsoever.

The fact is this - If you have seen the verifiable evidence (and Im ONLY talking about what is in the link I posted above, because that is all it takes) and you STILL think the planes/fires caused the buildings to collapse, then I see 2 possibilities for you. One, is that you are in complete disbelief, and too stubborn to admit you were initially wrong, or Two, you either think its funny, or you are being paid to debunk threads like this.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You are assuming the whole upper block came loose and somehow free-fell 10-12 feet (why was there now nothing underneath?) a large distance before impacting something (you didn't define what, of course).

Let's get a couple of things straight here. First of all, you didn't even provide a figure for how much dynamic loading whatever was being impacted, could take (or what was being impacted, of course, though I bet you would try to argue the entire upper block fell squarely upon the trusses of the floor below only). That's the whole other half of the equation, you just left out. You didn't demonstrate a damned thing.

Second of all, there is no global collapse mechanism. That means you can't just crunch numbers like that, because they don't represent anything at all in physical reality. Until someone explains the mechanism that perpetuated the collapse from floor to floor, you're up the creek.

NIST only defined an initiation theory, and didn't even analyze global collapse, and the other alternatives are things like "pancake theory" which even NIST has debunked and has various problems if you try to us it to run your calculations. For example, only one floor's worth of trusses could fall at a time maximum, not ALL the floors, and even then, you haven't explained how all the trusses came off at once, which is again something even NIST agrees is not logical and would need yet further explanation.

If you had done that for a physics class you would probably have received an "F".



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Lets see read the paragraph again you will understand what i meant ,in brief south tower hit lower down greater mass above impact point and falls before the north tower, although north tower struck well before the south ,both towers start to collapse just above impact points you can see on the video.

1600 that dont believe what you say QUALIFIED structural engineers v 640 what about the thousands of others worlwide that has MORE relevance than what you say!

MY background 30 yrs in construction industry structural steelwork draughtsman when I left school did civil engineering at college now test and give advice to architects & engineers on structural fixings.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


But you're missing the fact that the buildings were designed to hold, at least, 2x the weight of each floor (I'm sure it's more than 2x). Regardless how heavy the top was the buildings ability to hold it's weight didn't change.

As a construction guy you should know about this safety factor.

But regardless floors didn't pancake, even NIST realized how dumb that hypothesis was and changed their story. Have you not been keeping up?

how does this top section have the energy to crush it's own undamaged structure through the path of most resistance?

How do you explain the tilt of WTC2? How did the tilting top manage to symmetrically crush what was bellow it, when it was tilting and all it's energy was taken up in angular momentum? Most of it's weigh was not centered on the structure. According to physics the top should have continued it's path of angular momentum. So how does it suddenly cause everything under it to collapse?

If you look hard at the vids you can tell the bottom fell from under the top independently. This caused the top to drop straight down even as it was still tilting. It's physically impossible for the top to have been the cause of the collapse.

Learn some basic physics laws, stop reading other people biased opinions, and this will become clear to you. You can figure this out for yourself without having to appeal to authority for your answers, don't be intellectually lazy.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CityIndian
 


Floors have nothing to do with any of this.

WMD calculates the weight of the entire upper block. Guess what was holding it up? The perimeter and core columns, NOT the floors.

Even if it did somehow free-fall a whole 10-12 feet before hitting anything, the columns are going to be where the impact matters, and they're going to hit more columns, not just the trusses. In other words, it is completely idiotic to assume the entire upper block is going to fall squarely upon the open floor space of the next floor down, etc., and only consider the dynamic loading capabilities of the FLOOR and of nothing else.

Like I pointed out only a couple posts back, none of these numbers MEAN anything because they have no defined relation to physical reality. It would be equally easy to show how there was not enough PE/KE to do all the things that happened to that building, as has been done on other threads. Someone explain how all this happens and THEN we can begin to put numbers on it.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008



Lets see read the paragraph again you will understand what i meant ,in brief south tower hit lower down greater mass above impact point and falls before the north tower, although north tower struck well before the south ,both towers start to collapse just above impact points you can see on the video.

1600 that dont believe what you say QUALIFIED structural engineers v 640 what about the thousands of others worlwide that has MORE relevance than what you say!

MY background 30 yrs in construction industry structural steelwork draughtsman when I left school did civil engineering at college now test and give advice to architects & engineers on structural fixings.


Considering your claimed background, and the posts you've made recently, I hope to God that you arent working on any building that my family, friends, or I will ever be in.

Arguing with you on this matter is as pointless as your posts. Please take your business to another thread.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

You can spin 9/11 however you want to satisfy your denial, but until you can explain the jets of dust and debris that have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions, then everything you say looks like "blah blah blah" and means nothing:





Originally posted by wmd_2008
1600 that dont believe what you say

And you've asked every single one about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you have a list of these 1600 names so they can be contacted? I'm sure that once presented the evidence, I can turn many of them and have them joining AE911T in no time.



Originally posted by wmd_2008
what about the thousands of others worlwide that has MORE relevance than what you say

Do you have a list of these "thousands of others worldwide" that have made public statements in support of the official story or are you just "blah blah blah" again to try to make a point? I don't think you'll come up with any list of names and you're just making things up to make a point.



Originally posted by wmd_2008
give advice to architects & engineers on structural fixings.

With your views on engineering and construction, I find it criminally negligent for you to be advising others about building construction or engineering.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by wmd_2008



Lets see read the paragraph again you will understand what i meant ,in brief south tower hit lower down greater mass above impact point and falls before the north tower, although north tower struck well before the south ,both towers start to collapse just above impact points you can see on the video.

1600 that dont believe what you say QUALIFIED structural engineers v 640 what about the thousands of others worlwide that has MORE relevance than what you say!

MY background 30 yrs in construction industry structural steelwork draughtsman when I left school did civil engineering at college now test and give advice to architects & engineers on structural fixings.


Considering your claimed background, and the posts you've made recently, I hope to God that you arent working on any building that my family, friends, or I will ever be in.

Arguing with you on this matter is as pointless as your posts. Please take your business to another thread.


You cant argue with me so you resort to a personal attack against me WELL mate no building I have work on has fell down how many cock ups and friendly fire incidents has YOUR army been involved in! QUITE A FEW!!

This is supposed to be a discussion forum you put your point of view I am puting mine forward! You have no background in construction I have no background re the army etc.

When we have people on here making statements like
A reinforced concrete building would not collapse like that. Which is true because it was mainly structural steelwork!!

Then someone said all the concrete in the building was crushed to tiny particles. WRONG they seem to forget there was a s**t load of gyroc (you call it sheet rock) in the buildings which also account for a LOT of the dust!!!

Just a couple of examples plenty more on here!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


TYPICAL demolition of a tower block !

Recent demo job where I live flats about 17 stories high floor area less than a fifth of WTC towers.

How was it done weeks of planing ,MAJOR stuctral components and supporting walls removed all glass removed.

A couple of weeks drilling and wiring up explosives.

When the explosives went off your sqib plumes appeared on at least half a dozen locations on EACH ELEVATION FROM THE BOTTOM FIRST!! THEN HIGHER UP THE BUILDING!!

On a building a fraction of the size of the TOWERS blasts at many locaction on each elevation and all that work DID that happen at 911 dont think so!

Oh and by the way Bonez and the others IF you look at the video I linked the collapse started then the plumes you claim are explosives it usually the other way!

ps Not enough plumes either!

Have a look at this building not much LEFT BEFORE demolition eh!

video.google.co.uk...

[edit on 19-5-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I don't know what "all glass removed" has to do with demolitions, but you still haven't shown another explanation for the jets of dust/debris shown in the collage I keep posting. We're still waiting...



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join