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.

 

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack

Are you implying that this method was used for building 7 or WTC 1,2?



I was not. There were earlier posts saying it could only be brought down by explosives. These videos show that structures can actually collapse without explosives....provided they are seriously weakened or compromised.

Agreed that these examples are controlled. However, it still also shows that even a couple of seriously weakened floors collapsing could bring down the entire structure.




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 





Agreed that these examples are controlled. However, it still also shows that even a couple of seriously weakened floors collapsing could bring down the entire structure.


I agree it is possible but it is highly improbably that this occurred on 911 and caused a global collapse. After all, we are talking (in the case of building 7) of a highly reinforced steel structure - multiple support redundancies - not a parking garage.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I was always under the impression that any decision to send in or to remove fire fighters from any situation was always down to those in command of those men, not businessmen with a vested interest in making money?

Why would he even be consulted about the safety of the fire-fighters? if it was dangerous enough, then the commanders would make the call not the owner of a building.

So if what he mean by pull it was meant to mean remove the fire-fighters, if he had said fight it they would have been left inside the building? that makes no sense at all, that call should not be and was never his to make, now that is common sense.

If it did go down that way, then someone needs to be investigated just for asking him what to do don't you agree? because that scenario screams corruption on a huge scale.

Also if he was on the phone to his insurance company, that's disgusting, many people had just died, yet he is on the phone thinking about his pay out rather than being in shock and grieving like the rest of us.

And that is without going into the details of witnesses who said they saw unusual things inside the building who later just happened to die.

One question sums up this whole thing for me, if nothing sinister happened, what is the harm of having a proper investigation? wouldn't it end all the speculation as to what happened one way or another, so why are so many fighting it with everything they can, and don't say it's the cost, money is wasted on a lot worse than this, carry out an investigation, and in a way where nobody can hide any details or cover anything up, this is going to be the outcome eventually, for every person with what seems like a vested interest in keeping it from happening, creates 2 more people who are wondering why they wont.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by jthomas
IT = "firefighting effort."

He never said pull the building down.

All available evidence would beg to differ. Perhaps you should look at the evidence.


On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that Silverstein meant "pull the building down" when he said it on a NOVA interview taped long after 9/11 eliciting not even a raised eyebrow from anyone who heard him say it.




And when Thomas Chong says "hit the bong" it could have another meaning, but it doesn't.

I didn't, nor did anyone in the room raise an eyebrow when Sadam was convicted; using your logic he was not guilty.


It is important to add that Shapiro doesn't think the controlled demolition is responsible for the collapse.

Why is it important to add that? What does his opinion have to do with Silverstiens words?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
As a final year structural engineering student (yes, pretty soon I will be designing the structures you trust your life to) it's cute when I see OS believers either ignoring or arguing the laws of physics.

FACT: The WTC7 roof line and most floors underwent several seconds of sustained free-fall acceleration during collapse (NIST finally officially admitted this).

FACT: For a falling mass to achieve free-fall or close to free-fall acceleration under gravity it must encounter negligible resistance (i.e. there must be nothing in its way).

Any significant resistance (such as 47 stories of fire-proofed highly ductile structural steel) would prevent anything close to free-fall from being achieved.

For the 47 stories of structural steel to not provide any resistance to the accelerating floors, the structural steel would have to somehow "get out of the way" before it is able to provide any resistance to the collapsing mass above it. This is where the only logical speculation can come into play. Some say that the fire weakened the structural steel to the point where it virtually had no strength and hence provided negligible resistance (lol). Others say the only reasonable explanation is that the structure was severed ahead of the collapse wave by means of controlled demolition.

IMO when you keep it simple it starts to become very clear. What Larry said about pulling it and other things are very open to speculation. It's a bit harder to argue with physics.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Agreed that these examples are controlled. However, it still also shows that even a couple of seriously weakened floors collapsing could bring down the entire structure.


'Controlled' is the point. Those buildings did not have random asymmetrical damage, they were obviously weakened in a way that would allow them to collapse downward through the path of most resistance. You can't just take out random columns and expect a symmetrical collapse.

There are many methods to collapse a building in a controlled manner without 'explosives', one involves talking out sections of columns and replacing them with wood, set the building on fire and the wood burns allowing the building to drop. But again it can't just be random columns, you have to take out specific sections to allow a vertical complete collapse.

Look at these vids of demo's gone wrong, and you'll see that it only takes a slight mistake and the building will not globally collapse.

www.youtube.com...

Forget 'explosives', how do you think a building can symmetrically globally collapse if it's not controlled?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
Well, there would be many determining factors I assume.


Yep.

And this why all these statements like, "it just doesn't look right", etc means nothing.

It is not possible to make a solid judgement without studying the issue, and Google University does not give anyone the backround.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Any significant resistance (such as 47 stories of fire-proofed highly ductile structural steel) would prevent anything close to free-fall from being achieved.




NIST described how the internal, horizontal collapse resulted in about 8 stories of non or minimally braced columns, IIRC.

You don't have to agree with that, BUT, if you were to assume that to be true, do you agree that the resistance given by a bunch 8 story long, unsupported columns will be minimal?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Smack
Well, there would be many determining factors I assume.


Yep.

And this why all these statements like, "it just doesn't look right", etc means nothing.

It is not possible to make a solid judgement without studying the issue, and Google University does not give anyone the backround.


A university degree is not required here. Common sense and a modicum of discernment is what is needed.
The whole 911 cover up stinks. Larry Silverstein looks like a rat, smells like a rat, acts like a rat -- Larry Silverstein is a rat. The evidence points to a CD.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Smack
Well, there would be many determining factors I assume.


Yep.

And this why all these statements like, "it just doesn't look right", etc means nothing.

It is not possible to make a solid judgement without studying the issue, and Google University does not give anyone the backround.


A university degree is not required here.



Think about what you said.

You agree that there may be many determining factors. Which implies that you don't know what they are.

If common sense was sufficent to determine what they are, you would state them. You can't.

Therefore....... what now?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Yep.

And this why all these statements like, "it just doesn't look right", etc means nothing.

It is not possible to make a solid judgement without studying the issue, and Google University does not give anyone the backround.


Hmm when WTC 7 Collapsed Thousands of people said that same thing, that doesn't look right.

It doesn't take Ph.d to figure out that something is wrong, by observing.

You trivialize the sense of sight, by saying it means nothing, yet 99% of what humans base discovery and documentaion upon is observation.

So in turn it means everything. Your opinion alone of sight being worthless has nothing to do with the issue, that being WTC 7 was observed failing in a way that wasn't right!

"I observed the plane crash into the ground, hey thats not right!"

"I watched the car crash into the telephone pole, that sure wasn't right!"



[edit on 25-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by theability]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Yep.

And this why all these statements like, "it just doesn't look right", etc means nothing.

It is not possible to make a solid judgement without studying the issue, and Google University does not give anyone the backround.


Hmm when WTC 7 Collapsed Thousands of people said that same thing, that doesn't look right.



Yes they did. And I'll even agree with you here and agree that 7's collapse "looks" like a CD. However, it doesn't "sound" like a CD. So I'm unsure of what to think.

So, once one investigates further, and discovers that there is nothing implausible about NIST's analysis, backed by the fact that other, not involved with the NIST report structural engineers like the CTBUH do their own independant analysis, and see nothing wrong......

I then put my trust in the professionals.

You do not.

Fine with me.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


NIST are yet to release their computer model of the initiation of the collapse and collapse. One can assume that this is because it would not stand up to scrutiny in the engineering community.

Small (relatively speaking) isolated office fires do not compromise the structural integrity of a fire proofed steel structure (or even non fire proofed) to the point where an almost instantaneous collapse is induced.

Let's play along and say that NIST have correctly described how thermal expansion has resulted in ONE (according to NIST) column being minimally braced 8 for stories. How did we get to 8 stories of minimally braced or unbraced column? Why not collapse when we were unrestrained for 5 stories or 6 stories? When we reach 8 stories the forces acting on the column are probably starting to exceed what the column can support and it fails in a ductile manner (it is steel not concrete). So no, I would not say that an equivalent mass supported by a series of these heated, unrestrained for 8 stories columns, would achieve free fall acceleration, as these ductile columns would still provide an amount of resistance needed to not allow the falling mass to reach its maximum acceleration.

But that is not the point of my previous post. Let's play along even further and assume that said column suddenly ceases to exist. The rest of the columns have not suddenly become wet noodles! I don't have the exact number but there are A LOT of other columns. Columns which are designed with huge factors of safety (there's a reason no steel high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire damage). Even if the column which was unrestrained for 8 stories provided no resistance at all, the rest of the columns would have provided huge resistance.

The NIST investigation was a joke and they have changed their story so much over the years. Just because they wrote a big report and used technical terms and phrases doesn't mean it is the truth or the most likely scenario. They were told the conclusion, they then had to go write a report that reached that conclusion. They used to flat out refuse to admit free fall because they knew the implications free fall has. Remember, for the falling mass of the structure to achieve free fall, the supporting structure is providing the same support that columns and beams made out of wet noodles would have given.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Yes they did. And I'll even agree with you here and agree that 7's collapse "looks" like a CD. However, it doesn't "sound" like a CD. So I'm unsure of what to think.


I was not there so the sounds are unkown to me.

I agree, I do not know what to think either.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
So no, I would not say that an equivalent mass supported by a series of these heated, unrestrained for 8 stories columns, would achieve free fall acceleration, as these ductile columns would still provide an amount of resistance needed to not allow the falling mass to reach its maximum acceleration.



Do you agree with the engineering principles discussed here?

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper
part, which is equal to the potential energy release, would have to
be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations, i.e., Wp would have to
be larger than Wg . Rather,

Wg /Wp'8.4 (3)

So, even under the most optimistic assumptions by far, the plastic
deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy
acquired by the upper part of building.
When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms,
the upper part has already traveled many floors down and has
acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic
energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Yep.

And this why all these statements like, "it just doesn't look right", etc means nothing.

It is not possible to make a solid judgement without studying the issue, and Google University does not give anyone the backround.


Hmm when WTC 7 Collapsed Thousands of people said that same thing, that doesn't look right.



Yes they did. And I'll even agree with you here and agree that 7's collapse "looks" like a CD. However, it doesn't "sound" like a CD. So I'm unsure of what to think.

So, once one investigates further, and discovers that there is nothing implausible about NIST's analysis, backed by the fact that other, not involved with the NIST report structural engineers like the CTBUH do their own independant analysis, and see nothing wrong......

I then put my trust in the professionals.

You do not.

Fine with me.

The professionals disagree, you put trust in the professionals you choose to trust.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The professionals disagree, you put trust in the professionals you choose to trust.


I suppose you're talking about ae.

So which one do you believe in most?

Charles Pegelow? He believes nukes were used.

Another dude stated that the collapses of 1 and 2 started at the bottom.

Not exactly shining moments of clarity.

But aside from that please list-
1- the technical papers written by any of your pros that devastates NIST
2- any technical papers on any subject written by the ae dolts.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

The professionals disagree, you put trust in the professionals you choose to trust.


I suppose you're talking about ae.

So which one do you believe in most?

Charles Pegelow? He believes nukes were used.

Another dude stated that the collapses of 1 and 2 started at the bottom.

Not exactly shining moments of clarity.

But aside from that please list-
1- the technical papers written by any of your pros that devastates NIST
2- any technical papers on any subject written by the ae dolts.


I don't believe one or the other, I look at the work as a whole and try to find mathematical proof of the actual incident. There is not any as of yet, so I look at proof from previous instances. The proof from all previously solved incidences points to some sort of assisted demolition.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Once again that PDF is using the NIST assumption that a whole block of floors acted as a plunger, which makes the rest of the paper mute.

There is NO evidence that the whole upper block could do that, and there is nothing that could have caused the complete severing of all those central columns to allow the block to simply drop with no resistance.

WTC2 PROVES it to be wrong. It is known in physics that if something is not 'sitting true' on top of what it's crushing then it will not crush symmetrically. The top was under angular momentum with most of it's inertia in rotation, it cannot suddenly decide to fall straight down through the path of most resistance. The only way that could have happened is if the building under the top section fell and the top followed it down. Watch the collapse very carefully with that in mind...

I laughed when it said 800C was high temperatures.


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

Yet no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire, and the WTC didn't even get to it's max burn temps. Who do they think they're trying to fool?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
The proof from all previously solved incidences points to some sort of assisted demolition.


...but no reason why they would keep it a secret? If, after all, it was to protect the public, and other structures, to bring it down in a controlled fashion, why not just say so?

Not one single person coming forward to say he helped in this once-in-a-lifetime event? It would be historic...bringing down a still burning multi-story building in a controlled fashion with little to no notice.

Amazing!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join