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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


The damage to the towers was not symmetrical. Whether we know the true extent of it or not. That can be seen from the angle of impacts and the damage on the exterior.




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


The initiation of collapse was not symmetrical particularly in the case of WTC2 which sort of satisfies the asymetrical damage observation. It became symmetrical as the collapse progressed though and some may tend to think that took some intervention by way of explosives being used.

Now if I could actually see evidence of explosive charges of sufficient magnitude to do that, I'd be in agreement but so far I see no such signs of charges capable of severing the massive core columns and there were 47 of them to be broken up at multiple levels if that was the mode of failure with highly precise placement and timing.

I tend to think the actual design of those buildings was what brought about the apparent symmetry as they came down but I don't expect there'll ever be universal agreement on that which is fine with me.

Earlier you mentioned a new independant investigation and I'd welcome it too as it might be the only way to get previously undisclosed evidence made public. You just need to ask your self whether, after the investigation is over and the conclusions announced, would you accept the findings if they weren't what you expected or even wanted them to be. I really don't have a stake in this either way.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by Pilgrum]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
but so far I see no such signs of charges capable of severing the massive core columns and there were 47 of them


The core columns became "I" beams at the top. So, there are charges capable of severing those.


to be broken up at multiple levels if that was the mode of failure


According to the OS, only a floor's worth of support needs to be severed and the global collapse is "innevitable".


with highly precise placement and timing.


But yet, a chaotic fire did this?


would you accept the findings if they weren't what you expected or even wanted them to be.


If it was truelly independent and scientific, I'd have no other qualms with agreeing with it.


I really don't have a stake in this either way.


Nor do I.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


But here's the thing, if the collapses were not possible from the initial impact and fires, why would you need to actually see the 'explosives' (assuming 'explosives' were even used)?

If it can be proved, which I think has been, that the fire and initial impact damage could not have caused complete global collapse then something else had to have caused it, right? We don't really need to know exactly what that was, just that the official story is not true, so a new independent study should be done.

You shouldn't be asking, 'where are the explosives?' You should be asking, 'why did you lie to us?'

We don't need all these de-bunker details to show that a new study needs to be done by people with no agenda. But I'm afraid anybody with a respected career to protect is not going to touch it for fear of what they might find and have to report.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The initiation of collapse was not symmetrical particularly in the case of WTC2 which sort of satisfies the asymetrical damage observation.


No it doesn't. An asymmetrical collapse WILL NOT become a symmetrical collapse unless it's controlled. You know the whole point of 'controlled demolition'?

Why is it you de-bunkers don't get this? It's basic physics. It's been explained a thousand times, ever feel like you're being ignored?

The point you make about the collapse initiation being asymmetrical proves you have no idea how this works. A natural collapse will never be symmetrical, let alone become symmetrical once initiated, this thing called friction and resistance causing object to be deflected and slowed. Nature is chaotic and if you want the collapses to have been caused by chaotic natural events (as apposed to controlled) then you can't expect a non-chaotic outcome. Yet it happened to THREE buildings (and no I won't forget WTC7).

So no it doesn't 'sort of' satisfy anything, it in fact makes the event even more astounding.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But here's the thing, if the collapses were not possible from the initial impact and fires, why would you need to actually see the 'explosives' (assuming 'explosives' were even used)?



Maybe I should have listed all the suggested additional inputs like high & low explosives, thermite, harmonic frequency generators, space rays and strategically pre-cut beams or whatever the current favorite theory might be. All those things need is actual solid proof of their use and in 8 years there's no such proof.

I've also seen a lot of opinion but no solid proof that the collapses were impossible without such additional inputs so it has remain as possible until proven otherwise.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Maybe I should have listed all the suggested additional inputs like high & low explosives, thermite, harmonic frequency generators, space rays and strategically pre-cut beams or whatever the current favorite theory might be. All those things need is actual solid proof of their use and in 8 years there's no such proof.


You left out the mini nukes...



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


There is also no proof that aircraft impacts and fire can cause global collapse. In fact there is less logic in that hypothesis than there being some other kind of energy acting on the buildings, regardless of whether there is 'proof' of it.

With an open mind, not biased towards the government, then logic should suggest that the buildings had 'help' maintaining their collapse wave (path of most resistance, no slowing of collapse wave, conservation of momentum etc...)

Why do you need such absolute proof of this, when you're happy to except the governments explanation which also has NO proof, only assumptions that magically, and conveniently, fit the conclusion they set out to convince us of? Which they did reluctantly BTW.

This tells me you are having a problem excepting that your government could be lying to you, not that you can really understand what actually happened, sorry.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
"But here's the thing, if the collapses were not possible from the initial impact and fires, why would you need to actually see the 'explosives' (assuming 'explosives' were even used)?"

You make an excellent point here. This is part of the deception which is being distributed by the Official Story Waterboys. According to them, if you cannot see it or hear it, then it does not exist - which is complete rubbish.

Ever notice the only thing the Official Story Waterboys can keep harping on is futuristic weapons, which, of course, they obviously know with 100% certainty do not exist. On top of that, they also know with 100% certainty the American Government would not use such weapons against their own people.


If these guys have such important top secret information of the existence of such weapons and how and when they would be used, what the heck are they doing wasting their time posting on a conspiracy site.? This may be a stretch, but one would think that people with that kind of sensitive information would have a rather important position and would not be relegated to being employed as 9/11 damage control patsies.

Guess what? They have no idea as to what kind of weapons exist and do not exist and how or when they are used. They're just using this juvenile argument to ridicule and discredit anyone who uses logic and common sense to dismantle the Official 9/11 Mythology. Having an intelligent discussion with them is the equivalent of having an intelligent discussion with a broken record.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You're just confirming how we can lean in any direction in the absence of necessary evidence to resolve the issue. If the aim is to accuse and eventually convict a suspect the evidence will need to be conclusive won't it? I'm not blindly accepting anything until it's proven beyond doubt and I've never considered that to be the wrong approach - extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence to have a chance at becoming facts.

Planes and buildings are inanimate collections of nuts, bolts & hardware and know nothing of politics and they possibly care less for it than even I do. It's not my government either - I live about as far from the USA as it's possible to get without suffering frostbite (although today it's a summery 25C or 77F outside).



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


In 8 years there's also no proof of NIST's garbage, either, as they hypothesized something that has never happened before and completely neglected to physically test its validity. And no, their initiation hypothesis wouldn't have been impossible to test, it would only require a truss connected to a column. But the fact that they didn't even analyze the global collapse obviously means they have no proof of what happened there, either.

So if you want to base your entire argument on the fact that you have seen no definite physical proof of explosives, then unless you are a hypocrite, you should be skeptical of the "official story" for the same reason. It is just theories with no evidence, not even so much as circumstantial evidence.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Lack of proof of anything is the problem here but you're suggesting that NIST *could* possibly show some more than they have to date if it was required.

I'll remain skeptical until the burden of proof is satisfied but I doubt there'll ever be agreement with everyone so entrenched in their ideas by now. Something to think about though, outside of ATS I don't know anyone who has issues with the basic chain of events as reported and that includes personal and professional acquaintances. Might have to get fitted for a tinfoil hat myself



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I hear that a lot but I wonder how often the subject is actually brought up, because I have brought up 9/11 with almost all of my friends and family, and maybe it's just the people I'm related to/hang out with, but they are almost unanimously in agreement that 9/11 was either an inside job or the government let it happen (or else don't give a damn at all -- also a common sentiment), the big exceptions being my mother, grandmother on my father's side and one of my brothers. My dad (a mechanic) and grandpa (electrical engineer) are both outspoken against the "official story," even though I originally brought it up to my dad and he gave me all kinds of hell for it and almost cussed me out at first. Several years later he's coming to me asking me if I've ever seen WTC7 fall.


Then again, I live in a rural part of Virginia, and anti-government sentiments seem to have always colored this area's history. The largest insurrection since the Civil War happened not far from here in 1921 when an army of coal miner's marched on West Virginia, and then there was the Civil War itself... and the Revolution before that.. All in all Virginians are historically a very hard lot to satisfy I think.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I've never considered that to be the wrong approach - extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence to have a chance at becoming facts.


What you are failing to miss is that with just a little physics instruction you would already know that saying the building became symmetrical is a FAR more extraordinary claim than the way it should have fallen.

Suggesting the building somehow corrected itself is the extraordinary claim.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Something to think about though, outside of ATS I don't know anyone who has issues with the basic chain of events as reported and that includes personal and professional acquaintances. Might have to get fitted for a tinfoil hat myself


Something else to think about. I did not buy the OS from the minute I heard it. By 2003, I knew that I was FAR from alone in my doubts. It would be 6 years before I found ATS. Everyone has their own story, it does not make it THE story.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It is not NIST's job to find the why but to make sure it does not happen again. They are the reason for most of the code changes that were implemented when the new WTC 7 was built. To call NIST garbage is really something that is very incorrect. This is directly from NIST...



n response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.


During the investigation they will attempt to come to a conclusion to the why but it is not always conclusive.

www.nist.gov...

This way the resilience of future buildings will be greater and may we never have to deal with something of the magnitude of 9/11 whether it is a terror attack or natural disaster.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
It is not NIST's job to find the why but to make sure it does not happen again.


How can you make sure it doesn't happen again if you don't find the "why"?


This way the resilience of future buildings will be greater and may we never have to deal with something of the magnitude of 9/11 whether it is a terror attack or natural disaster.


Have you even read the new code changes? 99.9% of them have nothing to do with the resilience of future buildings. They have to do with widening stairwells, sprinkler system upgrades etc. I.E. ways to allow people to escape the building. NOT how the building can withstand total ,complete, global collapse due to fire.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

REAL REASON FOR COLLAPSE AND PANCAKE !!!



The twin towers had a "never used before" design for building sway and stress called "viscoelastic dampers". A total of 1000 in each tower !!! These dampers replaced very vital floor truss connections to the exterior shell and failed when subjected to the fire and also created the "pancaking" effect, which resulted from the initial collapse of the upper floors. The tower design was unusual because the floors were supported by the steel extoskeleton instead of steel beams located internally which made truss connections the more important. Why the head engineer or anyone else would approve so many of these is astounding!! Also, pins or bolts with slotted holes could have reduced or prevented failure !! A quick Google of these and you will see. End of discussion how. Now why !?

[edit on 29-12-2009 by the eyes have it !!]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by the eyes have it !!
End of discussion as how. Now why !?


I could agree with your theory.

And, you are right. Why?

Why would the government go to such lengths to cover this up then?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Therein lies the "root of all evil".



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join