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.

 

Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

page: 5
68
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by vanhippi
Nice post. Well put together, and shown me things I didn't previously know ;-)

TBH, it doesn't matter if the best demolition expert in the world says "I know for a fact, after years and years of exprience, that 911 was controlled demolition", because people will always be like "well it's opinion really" or "he's not really an expert" or stuff like that.

For excample, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, who has designed steel framed buildings, amongst others, all his life. Who is undeniable an "Expert" at designing buildings says it was controlled demolition and shows you PROOF of so, but people will be like "Yeah, well he aint no expert. He doesn't know what he's talking about"

www.youtube.com...

This is part one. Watch all of them if you're interested in another EXPERTS opinion on 911 being controlled demolition. This guy isn't just throwing biased, made up, garbage ideas at you. No. He is giving you evidence after evidence of how this, in his EXPERT eyes, is controlled demolition.


Richard Gage has no experience of high rise buildings and now depends on trutherism for his living.

He thinks cardboard boxes are a reasonable representation of the collapse of the towers !

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
So, in his expert opinion, it looks like it was a controlled demolition.

That's some nice work there, Lou.

Has he ever done demolition work even one with a central support & the rest of the structural supports on the outside, like the WTC towers?

Or how about a 110 story building?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Has he ever tried to demolish a building by taking out a portion of it, then weakening the steel with fire, to see if it would collapse? No? Then he hasn't exactly replicated the situation as told in the official story, so he can't rule that out.

Looking at something from the outside and saying "it COULD be" is different than being inside and saying "it IS."

[edit on 6/28/10 by mothershipzeta]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Can someone explain why the wtc 7 wasnt allowed to be investigated?

Comment on the video.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

I skipped over answering your questions because they are based on a hypothetical situation. Creating a conclusion based on speculation of what might have happened is irrelevant.

It might make for interesting speculation and if I was hanging out in a bar with you I might play out the scenario, but I stick to pictures and provable facts (or expert testimony
) on here whenever possible.


The CD of WTC#7 is a hypothetical situation. You skipped over answering because you don't understand demolition, don't want to answer, or both. I will make it easy for you:
The standard youtube videos of building CD's are not anything like the collapse of WTC#7 other than collapses occur. There was no evidence of a rapid series of explosive cutter charges before collapse, no evident precutting of structural elements, and no structural cabling to direct the fall. This means that any demolition was a plain old uncontrolled demolition and that, or failure due to fire, was the cause of collapse.

If you wish to claim demolition, you would have to claim that key structural elements were destroyed by a relatively small number of large thermite charges. They don't make any noise, although the large amounts required would brighten things up a bit. The small number is because close timing of structural failure due to thermite demolition is practically impossible due to variations in heat flux, heat capacity, and geometry. This means that if you want a sequential demolition from many small thermite charges, you can't have it.

The charges would be placed, or preplaced, the timers would be set/fuses lit and the demo team would leave. On ignition, the steel would be heated rapidly to a failure temperature. It doesn't have to melt or even get close to melting. The load bearing capability falls off quickly as the temperature rises. As soon as failure occured at a key location the building would immediately start to collapse. The best place to cook the steel would be at the fulcrum of the cantilevered beams. That is where the most stress is and would effect some collapse if any cantilever failed.

Given this, how can you tell the difference between failure due to thermite and failure due to thermal expansion? The answer is that you can't. Failure plus gravity gives the same results regardless of the cause of failure. You are in a conspiratorial bind here and if you want to claim demolition, you'll have to find actual evidence and not gut feelings about the way #7 collapsed.

You may now explain your theory of the demolition and how it was done.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
[quote
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.


In brief, the people trotted out as "proof" usually meet the criterion of #1. #2 is pretty much out, since there aren't any examples of people bringing down skyscrapers designed like the WTC in controlled demolitions. And #3 will ALWAYS be beyond reach.

Simply put, a few dozen engineers are to be believed while discussing hundreds of thousands who don't question the official story.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure I can find a physicist who thinks Einstein was full of crap. Does that destroy the Theory of Relativity?

Also, they tend to count a lot of people who really have no relevant experience...but ignore the hundreds of thousands with the same knowledge who are fine with the official story.

Architects & Engineers


I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Can someone explain why the wtc 7 wasnt allowed to be investigated?

Comment on the video.


What are you talking about ? WTC 7 had its own discrete NIST report :-

www.nist.gov...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Response to pteridine:
Alright, you reeled me in... I'm not a demolition expert but I don't believe you are either, so let's go for it!


Originally posted by pteridine
The CD of WTC#7 is a hypothetical situation. You skipped over answering because you don't understand demolition, don't want to answer, or both. I will make it easy for you:
The standard youtube videos of building CD's are not anything like the collapse of WTC#7 other than collapses occur. There was no evidence of a rapid series of explosive cutter charges before collapse, no evident precutting of structural elements, and no structural cabling to direct the fall. This means that any demolition was a plain old uncontrolled demolition and that, or failure due to fire, was the cause of collapse.


There's plenty of circumstantial evidence a rapid series of charges occured because the inner part and penthouse fell first, then the outer collapsed all into its own footprint, brought about by the center weight pulling the outer walls in. The outer walls had 80+ supports and the inner section had 20+ which ALL had to "cease to support" within seconds of each other. There are also eyewitnesses and videos of a series of thunder-like explosions immediately before the collapse.

Structural cabling... what is that?? They don't go in and cable the entire building for it to fall, they place charges to allow the weight of the building to cause an inward collapse. The only cabling I know of in demolition might be demo cord but that was obviously not used in the case of building 7 because it would have been found after the implosion. Radio or computer controlled thermite cutter charges have been used since the 1980s and don't require cords of any type.



If you wish to claim demolition, you would have to claim that key structural elements were destroyed by a relatively small number of large thermite charges. They don't make any noise, although the large amounts required would brighten things up a bit. The small number is because close timing of structural failure due to thermite demolition is practically impossible due to variations in heat flux, heat capacity, and geometry. This means that if you want a sequential demolition from many small thermite charges, you can't have it.

The charges would be placed, or preplaced, the timers would be set/fuses lit and the demo team would leave. On ignition, the steel would be heated rapidly to a failure temperature. It doesn't have to melt or even get close to melting. The load bearing capability falls off quickly as the temperature rises. As soon as failure occured at a key location the building would immediately start to collapse. The best place to cook the steel would be at the fulcrum of the cantilevered beams. That is where the most stress is and would effect some collapse if any cantilever failed.


Did you read this in a 1950s Popular Mechanics? Charges don't need to be lit with fuses anymore... they connect them to a radio/internet/ethernet connection so it can all be done from a laptop with split-second timing from anywhere on the globe.

I don't get your idea that a small number of charges would be needed. If pre-determined CD (controlled demolition) teams came into the building and placed charges it could all be done behind the scenes. When you walk into a building you don't see the steel beams and girders, you see sheetrock. We don't know where charges would have been placed so it's speculation on both our part, but as evidenced from the free-fall collapse most, if not all, the supports would have been taken out.

Thermite is a high-speed incendiary, it's not like it creates this warmth that gradually increases... it's BAM!! once it reaches 420 or so degrees C (by a detonator) the Iron/Oxygen portion (FeO; grey layer [pictured below]) reacts with the Ferous Sulphate (FeS; red layer) portion causing an instantaneous localized explosion to around 1500 C creating small iron spheres as a byproduct, which is why after controlled demolitions there is sometimes molten iron in the wreckage (which we see under all three WTC buildings)




Iron spheres are typical byproducts of thermite use.



Given this, how can you tell the difference between failure due to thermite and failure due to thermal expansion? The answer is that you can't. Failure plus gravity gives the same results regardless of the cause of failure. You are in a conspiratorial bind here and if you want to claim demolition, you'll have to find actual evidence and not gut feelings about the way #7 collapsed.


There were only fires on two floors of the 47. The largest fire on floor 12 only covered about 1/3rd of the floor surface area and the entire building remained basically un-burned. For global inward-momentum collapse it would require that heating of supports at very least cover most of the building. It's not plausible or even possible that the unburned side of the building would fall at free-fall speeds when there wasn't even any fire to heat anything, despite the idea that a common two-floor fire can't be hot enough to cause collapse of steel.



You may now explain your theory of the demolition and how it was done.


It's not my area of expertise to speculate precisely what happened.
* I defer to the professionals:
Tom Sullivan's 20 years experience watching demolitions says it was a controlled implosion.
Richard Gage's 20 years experience says a building will not fall symmetrically in global collapse without timed building-wide detonations.

* The physical evidence: iron micro spheres and molten metal under the wreckage as well as particles of thermitic substance found in the dust (Thermo's ATS Thread on thermite).

* And the stated "pull it" by the building owner, Larry Silverstein, who incidentally made 100s of millions of dollars off this transaction.

The idea that a few small fires in a 47-story building caused global, immediate collapse in 6.5 seconds is absurd.



[edit on 28-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by vanhippi
Nice post. Well put together, and shown me things I didn't previously know ;-)

TBH, it doesn't matter if the best demolition expert in the world says "I know for a fact, after years and years of exprience, that 911 was controlled demolition", because people will always be like "well it's opinion really" or "he's not really an expert" or stuff like that.

For excample, Richard Gage, an architect for 20 years, who has designed steel framed buildings, amongst others, all his life. Who is undeniable an "Expert" at designing buildings says it was controlled demolition and shows you PROOF of so, but people will be like "Yeah, well he aint no expert. He doesn't know what he's talking about"

www.youtube.com...

This is part one. Watch all of them if you're interested in another EXPERTS opinion on 911 being controlled demolition. This guy isn't just throwing biased, made up, garbage ideas at you. No. He is giving you evidence after evidence of how this, in his EXPERT eyes, is controlled demolition.


Richard Gage has no experience of high rise buildings and now depends on trutherism for his living.

He thinks cardboard boxes are a reasonable representation of the collapse of the towers !

www.youtube.com...


THANKYOU! You proved my point. I said people will be like "He isn't an expert". Well... umm... he is. You think because of one video that trys to make him look foolish, it ruins his 20+ years of experience. No. It doesn't. He is an expert on designing/creating steel framed buildings. Yes, we know this. So im sure that he knows what they can take and how to bring them down. Who am I more likely to believe. The guy with 20 years of expertise OR the guy who shows me some lame youtube video and thinks he knows who the expert is. UMMM......



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by vanhippi
THANKYOU! You proved my point. I said people will be like "He isn't an expert". Well... umm... he is.


I caught that too! I don't know if he read the thread but his timing was perfect!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
It's been almost a year since a 911 thread has even caught my eye.
The evidence for me is so cut and dry I won't waste anytime debating it further.
This one's a little different though. Good find OP.
For me it's beat'in a dead horse. I can't believe people are still in denial.
If it wasn't so sad, I would have to laugh.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Nope.

But if you watched car mechanics and photographed the way they work all day, every day, for several decades, then you probably would have a good idea of car mechanics. Looking at cars driving by you, doesn't really match up as an analogy.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vanhippi
 


If you think that Richard Gage has relevant experience as regards high rise buildings perhaps you could point me in the direction of examples that he had a hand in ? Thanks.

Btw, no-one made him juggle the cardboard boxes, it was his own idea.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
So how come the building was seen to be bulging for some time before they "decided to set off the explosives".

Mighty clever of them to predict the need for a slow demolition.

Perhaps the 20 story high hole and the internal fires had something to do with it?

Then there's the complete lack of any seismic data indicating an explosion.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
So how come the building was seen to be bulging for some time before they "decided to set off the explosives".

Mighty clever of them to predict the need for a slow demolition.

Perhaps the 20 story high hole and the internal fires had something to do with it?

Then there's the complete lack of any seismic data indicating an explosion.


Got pictures of this alleged bulging?

Also, if you read this thread you would know this, but imploding a building doesn't require a huge BOMB that would trigger any seismometer, they're small thermite or similar bursts that just take out a particular column.
Maybe you should read before making your assumption next time.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
If you think that Richard Gage has relevant experience as regards high rise buildings perhaps you could point me in the direction of examples that he had a hand in ? Thanks.

Btw, no-one made him juggle the cardboard boxes, it was his own idea.


Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He is the founding member of AE911Truth. He has been a practicing architect for over 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings.
From AE911truth.org

A few people who stand up as experts in this area are CONSTANTLY bashed by people like Good Ol' dave, GenRadek, et all because that's what they do. They take someone with a perfectly good name and drag it through the mud every chance they get - so people like YOU think he's not a legitimate source...

Richard Gage has devoted his life to truth in this area and has sacrificed his career because of what he believes in, as an expert with 20 years experience. Do you have 20 years experience in the industry? didn't think so.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


So, you can't point out any examples of high rise buildings that Richard Gage has been involved in ?

On the other hand, Leslie Robertson , who has had vast relevant experience and played a major role in the design of the WTC towers has no problem in accepting their collapses due to plane impact and subsequent fires.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Retseh
So how come the building was seen to be bulging for some time before they "decided to set off the explosives".

Mighty clever of them to predict the need for a slow demolition.

Perhaps the 20 story high hole and the internal fires had something to do with it?

Then there's the complete lack of any seismic data indicating an explosion.


Got pictures of this alleged bulging?

Also, if you read this thread you would know this, but imploding a building doesn't require a huge BOMB that would trigger any seismometer, they're small thermite or similar bursts that just take out a particular column.
Maybe you should read before making your assumption next time.


Why does there have to be pictures of the bulging ? I am sure you are well aware that there is firefighters testimony to it or are they lying ?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Star and Flag! Let the truth be known!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Got pictures of this alleged bulging?



I have better than that, I have a photo of the gash in the base of the building extending all the way to the 18th floor.

www.conspiracyscience.com...

Contained in that link you will also find the first hand testimony of the on-scene deputy fire chief who personally testified that on seeing the way the building was bulging he called for the evacuation of his men.

I assume you're saying he was either in on the conspiracy, or he was a fire chief with 33 years of experience with burning buildings who was mistaken when he said the bulge could cause the building collapse - a building which DID then collapse.

Which is it to be?




Also, if you read this thread you would know this, but imploding a building doesn't require a huge BOMB that would trigger any seismometer, they're small thermite or similar bursts that just take out a particular column.
Maybe you should read before making your assumption next time.


I have been reading these delusional posts since those terrorists brought the building down with aircraft filled with fuel - and they make no more sense now than they did then.

So the Feds used Thermite to burn through the columns did they - that lame theory, the only one that dodges the lack of seismic data, has been scientifically debunked so many times it's beyond boring, and yet here you are again trotting out its banal stupidity for the umpteenth time:

debunking911.com...

Not a single person has been able to replicate the cutting of a WTC I-beam with thermite, not one, and the nuts have been trying to do it for years. Finally they blamed it on the government having access to "Nano Thermite" something they couldn't replicate, so therefore they were right all along, case proved. Perhaps we should just call it Unobtanium.

So to summarize, what we have here is an attempt to make a patently absurd scenario fit a desired outcome, namely that the government, our own incompetent government, engineered 9/11 - because it's just too simple to accept that large jet planes filled with fuel hitting buildings at 400 knots could possibly bring them down.

I'm afraid there just isn't the evidence, and there isn't the desire to see an obvious truth, so you will feverishly search for any shred of evidence to support your paranoid theories, while the rest of us get on with our lives.

Good luck, you'll need it.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


LOL a gash in the side of a building is not going to cause symmetrical global collapse into it's own footprint, however much you want to believe that. How did that gash damage any load bearing columns? How did that gash cause the 'penthouse kink'?

Asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse.

The penthouse kink, if you know anything about controlled demolition, is a sign of a classic controlled demolition. Take out the central columns slightly ahead of the outer columns and it causes those outer columns, and the facade, to fall into the space created by the dropping of the central columns. Other wise the outer walls would fall outwards to the path of least resistance.

No natural collapse from fire, no matter what asymmetrical damage it has, is going to do that. The most that will happen is a localized collapse around the damaged area, it can't make the rest of the building collapse like a classic controlled demolition.

Check out the animation in this link halfway down the page, press on the red detonate button and learn something...

www.howstuffworks.com...



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join