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.

 

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discredited?

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Richard Gage has come under the limelight recently and a lot of scrutiny has been present. I will not cite any particular attempts at character assassination, however there have been many. My question to the would be detractors, do you have any evidence against Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth's case whatsoever that is not based on character attacks or other logical fallacies?

The main point that I have taken from their site is that the NIST changed their story in the final revision report to admit that the building was in freefall for 2.25 seconds.

In their final report, issued November 20, 2008, the NIST report's authors stated they had made a more detailed examination, and found a 2.25-second period in which the center roofline exhibited a "free-fall drop for approximately 8 stories.


What is the significance of that?

...the significance is that during that period of free-fall, all of the gravitational energy (also known as potential energy) is being converted into energy of motion (also known as kinetic energy). There is no energy available for doing other work, such as breaking up structural columns, or causing structural pieces to be hurled out of the way.


In other words we know what the force of gravity is and can measure it. The total work done during this collapse exceeded the amount gravity could provide.

So, if anyone has scientific data the contradicts what they are saying or what I and the average American are infering I would like to see your case here.




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Excellent thread, and a great point to bring up.

Honestly, the only 'debunker' regularly in the 9/11 threads with any credibility is Exponent. He/she CLEARLY knows what they are talking about, especially in regards to physics, which is what you would need to be educated in to even ATTEMPT to debunk the questions you pose.

My point is, unless Exponent contributes to this thread, your questions will not be answered. Also, as you may already know, he/she is having a pretty good debate about this very thing with bsbray in another thread already.

But still, you pose a great question which has not been answered by anyone yet.


Edit to fix "Exponent" name

[edit on 13/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


The questions have already been answered. Unfortunately, in truther fashion, the OP wont find them.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big Unit
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


The questions have already been answered. Unfortunately, in truther fashion, the OP wont find them.


Certainly not in ^this^ post good sir. See, you didn't answer anything. I am offering you the opportunity to do so. If you cannot it doesn't prove anything, but if you don't it speaks worlds of your true colors.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Unit
 


Well, given that your credibility is already shot by your posting of multiple attack videos on differant threads here thereby glorifying the harrasing crank calls against people who's beliefs are differant than yours, I suggest the burden is on you to provide more than just a one line "the questions have already been answered" post.

With all of the crap on both sides out in the forum land, it is hard to stay focused on the actual facts on both sides without the forum being flooded with angry attack posts. I hope this thread ends up differant and stays relatively on target with just the facts and nothing but the facts.

I for one have never heard a varifiable and demonstrable explaination for any of the buildings falling in their own footprint at freefall speeds, especially WTC7.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I just came to realize that Big Time was banned again. Nothing to see here now, let's move along. :-) (Edit to clarify that I was talking about Big Time's disruptive comment. By all means, let's keep this thread going..
)

[edit on 6-13-2009 by rogerstigers]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I understand that some people see me as a "truther" etc etc, but im not being facetious, I would really like to see any legit evidence.

I think a reason a lot of people don't try to debunk my threads is because I'm not presenting any specific conspiracy, therefore "Nothing to see here, move along". Nothing could be farther than the truth. I have made the point many times that while CT's need to be proven to be legit, disproving parts of the OS immediately prove it wrong.

This is very important information they present. The debate has moved along from there was absolutely no freefall vs it was freefall, to NIST admitting there was freefall. This is HUGE. If I believed the OS I would be calling up NIST and DEMANDING they revise. The OS is FALSE if no once can show the math on this.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
This is very important information they present. The debate has moved along from there was absolutely no freefall vs it was freefall, to NIST admitting there was freefall. This is HUGE. If I believed the OS I would be calling up NIST and DEMANDING they revise. The OS is FALSE if no once can show the math on this.


What math would you like? A portion being freefall is quite different to the entirety of the collapse being freefall. I don't see that this is a huge problem for the 'official story' as the WTC7 report detailed how the building collapsed and we know the internal frame was collapsing before we had originally suspected.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

What math would you like? A portion being freefall is quite different to the entirety of the collapse being freefall. I don't see that this is a huge problem for the 'official story' as the WTC7 report detailed how the building collapsed and we know the internal frame was collapsing before we had originally suspected.


Depends on whether you're saying the frame was collapsing before you thought it was, or it was disintegrating into nonresistant nothingness before you thought it was.

It kind of makes a big difference. You have to keep in mind the frame is not independent of the visible facade...not even part of it.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Depends on whether you're saying the frame was collapsing before you thought it was, or it was disintegrating into nonresistant nothingness before you thought it was.

It kind of makes a big difference. You have to keep in mind the frame is not independent of the visible facade...not even part of it.


This doesn't make sense, NISTs collapse mechanism is an initial progressive collapse around the area of column 79 followed by a lower level failure which became progressive. As far as I am aware, the period where no resistance is claimed, is 8-9 seconds after the start of collapse. "Freefall" is only evidence of demolition if it occurs for long enough that the energy to damage columns could not come from resistance by the structural frame. In this case that does not happen, the building attains freefall acceleration for a very short period in the collapse, and for the rest of the collapse there is obviously a resistive force.

What exactly is the controversy?



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

This doesn't make sense, NISTs collapse mechanism is an initial progressive collapse around the area of column 79 followed by a lower level failure which became progressive. As far as I am aware, the period where no resistance is claimed, is 8-9 seconds after the start of collapse. "Freefall" is only evidence of demolition if it occurs for long enough that the energy to damage columns could not come from resistance by the structural frame. In this case that does not happen, the building attains freefall acceleration for a very short period in the collapse, and for the rest of the collapse there is obviously a resistive force.

What exactly is the controversy?


Who said anything about demolition? I responded to your former post, which did not make sense.


con⋅tro⋅ver⋅sy
  /ˈkɒntrəˌvɜrsi; Brit. also kənˈtrɒvərsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-truh-vur-see; Brit. also kuhn-trov-er-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -sies.
1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.


The controversy is I don't agree with your former post. It didn't make sense. It still doesn't make sense. Especially when you're inserting "demolition" when I haven't uttered a word about demolition. It doesn't matter if the period of freefall was at the beginning, 2 seconds in, or 8 seconds in, does it? I don't think it does when we're talking about a structure falling. Waving hands and saying something started collapsing before we could see it doesn't work either, because as I said, the frame and the exterior structure are not independent structures.

[edit on 6-15-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I agree, this is a great thread. Another huge significant factor coupled
to the original post is that NIST had to revise and correct their model
because they were exposed during the public debate.

Read that again: NIST was corrected and they revised their model to
show 2.5 seconds of free-fall.

David Chandler was a major player in this embarrassing display for NIST
and you may view his presentation at the AE911 ste, or video uploads on
Google/YouTube.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
It was the bottom 8 stories and it was from the onset of collapse until 2.25 seconds into it from what I read.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Hi everybody,

The debate is quite heated, and the issue very complex. WTC 7 seems to be one of the larger "weakest link in the chain" problems of the government and mass media provided official story into the events of 9/11 2001.

For the most part, things that are true, with more evidence are confirmed more strongly as true and things that are false with more evidence are shown as false. Not being able to prove that WTC 7 fell due to fires and some damage after nearly eight whole years (!!!) should raise red flags.

On the surface, I could well believe that the building fell due to damage from the collapse of the other towers, and I could easily believe that massive fires lead to its destruction, BUT watch the video clips, no way!

I am not an expert, but free fall acceleration through air, of any part of Building 7, seems very suspect.

Power and Equality

edit for spelting



[edit on 17-6-2009 by yyyyyyyyyy]



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   



What exactly is the controversy?

free fall ACCELERATION


the building gained speed as it was collapsing...that is the problem.

-[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.



Shyam Sunder, lead investigator/NIST says in this vid I posted below from utube

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=ch annel_page


as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.

Over 1/3 of the collapse time, the building is falling, with 'NOTHING' underneath it. That is the 'ONLY' way to achieve the rate of 9.8m/s^2

Vertical support was 'REMOVED', not weakened
If the columns were weakened, they still 'HAVE' to offer resistance...then there would be 'NO' free fall ACCELERATION.

How do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???

Acceleration of gravity...at 4.0s of the collapse, the 'ENTIRE'building is falling faster than 80 ft.a second...'ONLY' possible by removing 'ALL' resistance...nothing in the way



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
The NIST , HYPOTHESIS, is based on...?
no steel was examined....no pics or video, no pics of ANY fire in the WTC7 report ANYWHERE that show any type of building collapsing inferno[there are none]...they even contradict them selves in their own report...[no surprise there]

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

Fire that take place, where no one can see...how does cold steel act the SAME as steel in an inferno
You don't need math...just Common sense, and BASIC physics principals..because these building break them all...if any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall, since it did fall at free-fall acceleration, it wasn't causing itself to collapse.

Progressive collapse occurs when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the collapse of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes additional collapse. The resulting damage is DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
beat a dead horse.

Witnesses were told the building was to blow or "pull"

Experts (not trying to cover up fruitless efforts of Governmental theory) say it was a classic demo.

The liquid steel/iron under the rubble says volumes against any theory other than column cutting,

You could talk until the cows come home and never convince some that this was caused by the towers or other than demo.

You know why?

Because it was a demo.

Why was it not in the 911 report?

The comission was headed by admin insiders and it was a demo.
That's why.

The floride has not made some of us retarded.

We know...


edit to add:

Last week I had a short discussion with my mother.

She never heard of building 7. I guess the hiding of truth has worked quite well.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by imd12c4funn]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   

beat a dead horse.


I prefer to call it "look at it in a new unbiased light". Showing the facts of 911 to a person in an unbiased non conspiracy oriented manner. As you said your mother never even heard of building 7.

She was probablly just finishing up the NIST prelim...



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
JP:

Perhaps this video will sped some light on the subject? The man that did the video appears to answer questions on the Youtube page and also has his e-mail address at the beginning of the video:



Part I in a series debunking conspiracy theories about the collapse. Focus on David Chandler's faulty observations, proving him wrong. Pass on to your skeptic friends. Shine a light on the truth.





posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big Unit
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy
 


The questions have already been answered. Unfortunately, in truther fashion, the OP wont find them.


It has been proven that you are a disinfo agent, and have called
and harrassed ppl in real life.

You are not to be trusted, and you are a not concerned about
truth, but your agenda.

You and the other new world order types will get your justice in time.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join