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: 6
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


a gash in the side of a building is not going to cause symmetrical global collapse into it's own footprint

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.






www.journalof911studies.com...

This information, for those wanting to do research, is from steven jones. A retired physics professor.



Other wise the outer walls would fall outwards to the path of least resistance.


I can't find a source for this information. According to my physics professors Steven Wilson and Douglas Patterson, outwards is not always the path of least resistance.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by iamcpc]




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
im not a demolitions expert, but i play one on ATS



but really, i know everyone wants concrete solid irrefutable scientific evidence one way or the other.....but its not going to happen....give that up


what remains is what we feel at our gut. Its just my opinion....but i think there are basically two kinds of ppl in the world....those that argue because they have a heartfelt, soul-deep hunger and thirst for truth....and those that like to argue for the sake of arguing (i dont mean that in a demeaning way, but some ppl have a propensity for intellectualizing something because they can or are good at it). Sometimes either one might not even know what drives them in that regard....but i can say from my own experience that i belong to the first group....and my dad belongs to the second group.

some ppl have a need to be 'right'.....others just want to know whats right....i think theres a qualitative difference.

i know when i saw the towers go down i 'felt' deep down there was far more to it than meets the eye...and back then i hardly knew the import of the 'conspiracy theorist' idealogy or perspective.

I think far more important than any one or even several answers to the questions that vex us, is the self knowledge of WHY we do what we do...WHAT drives us and to what end. Having all the answers wont satisfy us in the ways we think we want or need.....i feel quite sure of that. But feeling secure and sure in ourselves that we are dealing truly with ourselves and with our fellow man I think can give us all what we truly seek......



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I can't find a source for this information. According to my physics professors Steven Wilson and Douglas Patterson, outwards is not always the path of least resistance.


Look, if a wall has nothing on one side of it and a building on the other, then the air on the outside IS the path of least resistance...Every time.

Stop trying to deny the physics all the time, you are wasting time and making yourself look silly with this constant denial of everything and anything that does not support the OS.

And I don't give a damn about your professor, so quit bringing him up unless you can present him here so we can discus what he has to say.
I don't need your second hand hearsay.

My professor can beat up your professor!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 




The article covered a few questions concerning the possibility of a controlled implosion of Building 7. Wouldn't windows be blown out for blocks due to the large, and loud, explosion? Sullivan says "with any implosion there is never just one big explosion but rather waves of smaller explosions -- not unlike the percussion section in a symphony" he also states "we are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided."


As for the windows you outlined

Remember back to a seminar given by FDNY chief officers on building collapse

One of things cited in a building becoming unstable is the failure of the windows

Excerpts from Failure analysis of WTC 7 by FDNY Battaion Chief Arthur
Scheuerman

Full article

www.nistreview.org...

Read the article .......



This initial column failure was evidenced by the kinking and sinking of the east penthouse into the building’s roof and the simultaneous breaking of the windows on the east side of the north wall as it was pulled in by the suspended floors.





The breaking of the widows on the east side of the north face simultaneously with the buckling of the roof shed was evidence
of this tension as the north wall was pulled and leaned in



So who do I believe? FDNY Chief officers with years of experience or
some conspiracy loons on the internet....


I don't understand the rationale of the reference to broken windows as a cause of instability, when your own quote says pretty clearly that the instabilty was already invoked by other forces of tension. The popping of windows can only mean that the already instability caused their failure as well. Besides that, your last quote can only refer to two events which could not be simultaneous since one has to be a result of the other. Simultaneous is a twice used word in your quotes, and for that keyword to be true, there had to be a third force acting upwardly and laterally..like an explosion perhaps?
Edit to add,
Your link is to but one officer, and it is less a NIST review and more a personal view which includes suppositions and unknowns and is as speculative as anything here on ATS.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And I don't give a damn about your professor, so quit bringing him up unless you can present him here so we can discus what he has to say.
I don't need your second hand hearsay.


On the note of not giving a damn about my professor I don't give a damn about your 100% un-expert opinion so CITE YOUR SOURCE. I shouldn't have to cite your sources for you.



Look, if a wall has nothing on one side of it and a building on the other, then the air on the outside IS the path of least resistance...Every time.


What about going straight down?



Stop trying to deny the physics all the time, you are wasting time and making yourself look silly with this constant denial of everything and anything that does not support the OS.


Stop making up physics all the time. You are wasting time and making yourself look silly with this constant imaginary of physics.

Oh did you notice how i presented a source of evidence that called the OS into question and supported the demolition theory involving WTC 7???

Thankfully one of us did remember. Allow me to remind you. It's on this same page. Scroll up. I'll even give the link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It's rather funny that you say i'm making myself look silly "with this constant denial of everything and anything that does not support the OS."
after I present evidence that does not support the OS. Yet another example I have of you either grossly misunderstanding things or outright making things up.


This one falls into the category of you making things up.





Allow me to restate my 100% un-expert opinion since you don't seem to be clear on it. I believe that something other than debri and fire damage could have been used to assist with the collapse of WTC 7. I believe that something other than airplane impact and fire damage could have been used to assists with the collapse of the twin towers.

As shown through my research, evidence, independant investigations, and expert sources, the theory that the twin towers collapsed because of airplane impact damage and fire damage did not defy the laws of physics and was not IMPOSSIBLE.

This is where our opinions differ. After speaking with multiple physics professors your understanding of the physics behind the twin tower collapse is not quite there.

Your assumptions are based on a few incorrect theories based on things that are flat out untrue as I have shown you.

1. The twin towers did NOT collapse a free fall speed.

2. Because the twin towers did NOT collapse at free fall speed they had something, much greater than air, resisting the collapse.

3. Sometimes the path of least resistance, is straight down, through an object, or objects, that offers resistance.

4. A falling object can have resistance, and still fall straight down.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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


Has Lance Armstrong ever won the Tour of Italy?

Doesn't mean he's not a good cyclist if he hasn't.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Here's a picture of the damage to the corner of Bldg 7



So, there is more damage than I stated on page 4 or so, but I have never seen any bulging or engulfing fire. Does this damage (above) really constitute enough damage for a building to free fall all at once!? No.

by the way - do any of you OSers actually know how to post a picture?? It's really not that hard.


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



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


The circumstantial evidence that “a rapid series of charges occurred 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” is not evidence of demolition. It is evidence of collapse that you ascribe to demolition. If charges of any kind had been placed on the outer columns, someone just might have noticed. Consider that the “thunder-like explosions” may well have been sounds of internal collapse. Actual cutter charge explosions would have been sharp cracks and would have blown out the windows, which we also see didn’t happen.
Cabling directs the fall in a controlled demolition. Gravity plus cabling get things going where you want them to go and prevents embarrassing moments where the walls fall the wrong way. There may be just a few cables but they are obvious. Precuts are also made.
Demo cord is det cord and is pentaerythritol tetranitrate. Not a whole lot is left after it goes off.
For a rush job, nothing works better than a plain old time fuse. Radio controlled demolition has a problem when there are many people wandering around with cell phones, two way radios, and other emissive devices. Computer controlled demolition for a few charges isn’t worth the aggravation and chance of failure, especially when the links are disrupted by buildings falling on them, is much higher.
Of course you missed the part about thermite not being useful for closely timed demolitions and the fact that during a major attack, there might not be continuous web access.
I suggested the small number of large thermite charges because no rapid series of explosions of cutter charges were heard, so we must invoke a quiet way to demolish. Thermite cannot be timed like HE cutter charges so to get the even collapse a few charges would be better than many ill timed structural failures.
The thermite reaction occurs much less rapidly than any explosive and the heat flow into a beam takes seconds. The pictures of the primer paint on oxidized structural steel discovered by Jones is not what thermite looks like. Thermite is a granular powder of black iron oxide and aluminum. FeS is ferrous sulfide, not the sulfate [FeSO4]. It doesn’t do anything with the iron oxide. The thermite reaction is the redox reaction between elemental aluminum and iron oxide. What is produced is aluminum oxide [Al2O3] and elemental iron which is molten because of the heat of formation of the Al2O3. The hot metal found under the buildings, after some weeks, is the result of underground fires. Thermite doesn't stay hot any longer than any other molten metal.
Thermite is difficult to ignite, especially if it is old or has been in high humidity. I’ve used barium peroxide/aluminum dust with great success to trigger the thermite reaction with aged thermite.
Iron spheres are typical byproducts of thermite use….and welding and cutting torches working steel, and fly ash components from coal combustion.
Fairly low temperature fires can significantly degrade the strength of steel and will cause uneven steel expansion and shearing of joints.

“It's not my area of expertise to speculate precisely what happened.” This is obvious.
"* I defer to the professionals:"
Tom Sullivan watched demolitions as a low level technician, which doesn’t make him much of an expert. Gage has no experience in demolitions and, given his cardboard box demo, not much in structural steel buildings either, according to actual structural engineers.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


"AHH! So a photographer is your "expert" demolition guy?"

Snapper believes in controlled demolition! Stop the world! New investigation!
NWO on its knees!



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


I find it incredible you need a source for what the path of least resistance is, or my use of it in context.

What do you mean straight down, how is straight down EVER the path of least resistance for a WALL.

Resistance is ANYTHING that resists movement, I think the downward movement of a wall is kind blocked by the wall itself.

What would NOT resist movement, the building itself, the ground under the wall, or the air on one side of it?

This is why I question your ability to understand the physics, you keep showing constantly you don't understand this simple physics principle, along with your constant need for a source for it and your constant appeal to authority, your 'professor'.

I don't give a damn if you believe ANYTHING I say, that's your loss not mine. You are obviously not here to learn anything just argue with everything.

How hard would it be for you to go learn what 'path of least resistance' means instead of writing long irrelevant posts asking for sources every time I used the principle?

BTW I don't ever post links to 9-11 web sites, unless they have a pic I want to use, or an outside verified quote, so don't expect me to do that. It's not necessary, and your constant need for some authority does not help your credibility to be able to argue my points whatsoever.

What gives you the authority to claim I'm making things up when I keep proving you don't even understand the basics of the argument?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Even so that is simply damage to the facade, how does that even start to effect the load bearing columns at the interior of the building?

Outer columns are there to hold up the facade and house the windows and doors, they are not critical to the buildings ability to keep standing.

Need a source for that iamcpc?


Have you seen this...

www.youtube.com...

Now that's a steel framed building on fire and it didn't globally collapse into it's footprint. And neither did wtc 4,5 and 6 for that matter. Funny how three buildings were completely demolished and all the others did what would be expected, local collapses only, don't you think iampcp?

[edit on 6/28/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Even so that is simply damage to the facade, how does that even start to effect the load bearing columns at the interior of the building?


Read and learn.


Outer columns are there to hold up the facade and house the windows and doors, they are not critical to the buildings ability to keep standing.


They hold up the floors too.

The floors also serve to brace both the core AND exterior columns.

Removing a floor results in a reduction by 9x, IIRC, of the load carying capacity of the columns.

So yes, the ext columns are critical.


Need a source for that iamcpc?


Why the tease?

We all know you ain't got one....



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I'm not buying the chance of failure for remote devices - how often do you accidentally pick up other people's cell phone calls? Never, each device has it's own code. An expensive incendiary device is going to have ZERO chance of someone's cell phone setting it off.

I provided pictures and citations for my scientific stuff - maybe you could do the same since our ideas of what thermite is vary quite a bit. I have a pretty fair knowledge of science - if you mix FeS and FeO the S (sulfur) is used for gaining heat, the O (oxygen) is used for oxygenating the fire, and the iron is the fuel. I figured if I was wrong on the -ate, -ite, -oxide someone would point it out

I've heard varying descriptions for thermite; the one I'm using is from Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Harrit, Farrer, Jones, et al.



“It's not my area of expertise to speculate precisely what happened.” This is obvious.
"* I defer to the professionals:"
Tom Sullivan watched demolitions as a low level technician, which doesn’t make him much of an expert. Gage has no experience in demolitions and, given his cardboard box demo, not much in structural steel buildings either, according to actual structural engineers.


Right - why bother with 40 years of experience when we have an intelligent, well thought out idea by an anonymous online person to describe the way things must have happened.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
For those still researching WTC7....


www.youtube.com...

The BBC announced the "collapse" of WTC7 20 odd minutes before it happened...using some psychic powers which allowed them to look into the future...

If you watch the video above, you will see that during the live feed, the announcement that WTC 7 had fallen was ridiculous(as well as frickin' suspicious) because the building can clearly be seen behind the BBC announcer....

As soon as someone realised this MASSIVE MISTAKE the signal started to go fuzzy and then was disconnected....which was obviously done to prevent us seeing WTC7 collapsing behind the presenter...a rather awkward situation given they told us it had already collapsed...PLEASE WATCH.

The BBC, when questioned about this obviously scripted " news" said they had lost the VHS tapes, and called it an "error..." !!

ERROR????Tapes from arguably the most important day in Modern History??? Lost??

How did the BBC know that Building 7 was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually did when prior to 9/11 no steel-structured building had ever collapsed due to fire?

Any rational person would conclude that this is, at the very least,highly suspicious.., and at worst, clear proof that 9/11 was totally planned...


www.youtube.com...


Equally bizarre.....FOX NEWS ALSO MADE THE MISTAKE OF REPORTING THE CONTROLLED DEM .....OOPS... THE COLLAPSE, before it happened....

See above....

Clearly the smoking gun(of which there are many) proving this whole sorry day was planned from the beginning....steel framed buildings dont collapse from a fire...not before 9/11.....or after....yet 3 on 9/11....


Come on....wakey wakey!!

We only want the truth.

The Official Story is not the truth...



[edit on 29-6-2010 by benoni]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I can only that hope that when the consensus finally resolves that these buildings were all deliberately destroyed to start war in the Middle East, the ones who finally realize their arrogance take it as a long opportunity to reflect on how they were able to be so manipulated, and how the strength of a single clear mind is always superior to one million deluded ones.

And that the ones who are too emotionally stigmatized to ever realize what is now too obvious, don't go down into history quietly, but are remembered as an example for future generations, just as those of Copernicus' generation.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
well said...couldnt agree more...!!


second line...



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Can you explain why the people who blew up the building decided to admit to the media what they had done?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Nobody confessed to blowing the building up...

What are you talking about mate???

Howzabout you explain how it was that they announced it 20 minutes before it had even happened???????

thats the critical question you should be asking....



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


You say they told the media that they had done it. I'm asking why anyone would do that.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Who is "they"??

I did not say anything of the sort, and, if you read carefully, you would know that.

But thats beside the point....

...my post is 100% factual.

It happened exactly as described..

I can understand your confusion....none of it makes sense...

Clearly whoever "they"(as you refer to them..)are made A MASSIVE MISTAKE...A MISTAKE THAT SHOWS CLEARLY TO ANYONE OF RATIONAL MIND THAT THE OFFICIAL STORY IS A LIE....

I'm sure, if you are rational, you will agree.




top topics



 
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join