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: 8
68
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





Doesn't it seem more likely to you that the BBC and Fox heard the responders reports (which you can find elsewhere easily) that the building was likely to fall and reported it erroneously? It does to me.


The BBC report was based on one from Reuters which in turn was quoting
"local source"

Some where along the chain statement that WTC 7 might/could collapse
was transformed into WTC HAD collapsed !

Moat likely started around 3PM when FDNY set up collpase zone surrounding WTC 7 - that day was listening to the radio transmissions on scanner when heard the collapse zone being set up/ Reporters would have been able to hear same thing....




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The BBC report was based on one from Reuters which in turn was quoting
"local source"

Some where along the chain statement that WTC 7 might/could collapse
was transformed into WTC HAD collapsed !


This can't really be accepted as fact - this theory, that it was Reuters' fault, didn't even arrive on the scene until SEVEN years after 9/11 happened. It might be or might not, but just because some dude at BBC said it doesn't make it 100% proof. Has anyone seen an actual wire from Reuters, dated 9/11? I'd be more likely to believe it that way.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein


So you think the crime of the century was purposefully leaked??
wow... just wow!


No! Quite obviously I think there's a much more prosaic answer, which is that in the heat of the moment Reuters - or whoever - got it wrong, and the BBC and Fox reported their mistake.

Unwittingly I suppose you've shown a classic piece of paranoid thinking. There must have been a crime so it must have been leaked. This couldn't have happened on purpose so it must have been an error.

I'm just trying to show that this logic - and indeed the whole notion that the early report of the collapse is suspicious - is specious in the extreme. You basically have three options.

- The perpetrators told the BBC and Fox about the demolition by mistake

- They told BBC etc on purpose

- Nobody told the BBC et al. They just misreported sources warning of an impending collapse

(There is a fourth. The BBC are in on it and so reported it because... well, because they're in on it. I don't think this even deserves inclusion)


It just looks to me like option three is most likely. What is undeniable is that the idea that the early report is "suspicious" in some vague sense doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.


Oh dear you guys are hilarious.

Have YOU got a link to that claim?

What floor was removed?

And I'm making things up?

And iampcp just because you don't understand the path of most\least resistance concept it doesn't mean I'm making things up.

Why don't YOU explain for us all what it means...While you're at it explain what resistance is. No links, just in your own words.

You keep saying I'm making things up but then you just prove you fail to understand...

You really have just become a troll now imo, a troll that keeps repeating itself and getting nowhere.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Here's the thing news agencies do not write their own government press releases, the government does and it sends them to the press to be read as written.

The mistake was not with the media, it was with whoever in the government sent out the press release.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Have YOU got a link to that claim?


There you go! Get the source and find out! do the research! Share the information! you're learning! CITE YOUR SOURCE! Help those people who have come here for looking for expert testimony, independant investigations, scientific data, and reports find them!!!



And I'm making things up?


I can't make claims that other people are making things up untill I find out for sure from people who know more about the subject than bloggers and forum posters. After I interview an engineer and ask him about that claim and confirm it's true or not then I will come back



And iampcp just because you don't understand the path of most\least resistance concept it doesn't mean I'm making things up.


Just because you don't understand the path of most/least resistance does not mean that I don't. Because you don't understand the path of most/least resistance and you pretend that you do meants that you're making things up.



Why don't YOU explain for us all what it means...While you're at it explain what resistance is. No links, just in your own words.


I would say that resistance is any force that tends to retard or oppose motion.



You keep saying I'm making things up but then you just prove you fail to understand...


I'm saying that you're making things up because you don't cite a source and after my personal interview with two seperate physics professors Steven Wilson and Douglas Patterson as well as my real life examples I have PROVEN that you are making things up.



You really have just become a troll now imo, a troll that keeps repeating itself and getting nowhere.


ditto. If you want me to stop calling you out on things that you say that are made up then maybe you should stop making things up.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Here's the thing news agencies do not write their own government press releases, the government does and it sends them to the press to be read as written.

The mistake was not with the media, it was with whoever in the government sent out the press release.



What do you mean? What press release? How do you know the source was a government press release? Or are you just making this up?

It seems like you're just being wilfully obfuscatory now, I assume because you realise how odd your position is.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to
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.


ZERO is a very small number. It is not really zero and no chances would be taken with a major conspiracy. Time fuses are the safest but if you like mission impossible radio detonators with red lights, it is your theory.

Your pictures and citation are from Jones' paper. This paper has serious problems.

Your knowledge of chemistry is unique. Unfortunately, it is also completely wrong.

If you mix iron sulfide and iron oxide you will end up with a mixture of iron sulfide and iron oxide. Search on "thermite reaction" or read page 23 column 2 line 9 of the Jones' paper you refer to. You will find:

2Al + Fe2O3 --> Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), delta H = - 853.5 kJ/mole.

Note that in the redox reaction of elemental aluminum and a metal oxide, in this case iron, the metal oxide is reduced to the elemental metal and the aluminum is oxidized to Al2O3. The negative enthalpy value means that the reaction is exothermic [heat is released].

[edit on 6/29/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by ANOK
 



To me it seems just as - in fact far more - logical that the reason the erroneous report occurred was because of responders' warnings about the impending collapse. These are a matter of record.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]


If you look at Redman's Fire Chief link again, it is at odds with what other firefighters, as you correctly state, had said. This is where there is a mismash of statements. Fire chief Scheuerman quite clearly says at the start of his statement that the building was allowed to burn, since it had "some fire resistance" (unknown), and that the clearing of the area was a precaution, and also because the twin towers had fell. The rest of that link goes on to theorise why WT7 fell, all retrospective comments. The NIST spent $10Million on a cartoon alone, to explain why WT7 fell. Barry Jennings is no longer with us, yet he stated that there was internal damage, to the building before the North tower collapse. Other firemen comments were "Watch this building it's gonna go" That would be obvious if they already knew that the building had been compromised in some way, as Barry Jennings has said, not so obvious if you go with Fire Chief's Scheuerman's musings.


www.nistreview.org...



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
You said-

"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"

To which I replied=



Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.



Have YOU got a link to that claim?




Do you dispute that:

1-They hold up the floors too. And therefore part of the gravity loads?
If so, then explain how the outer ends of the floors are supported.

2-The floors also serve to brace both the core AND exterior columns. If so, then explain what braced them.

3- Removing a floor results in a reduction by 9x, IIRC, of the load carying capacity of the columns.
If so, then provide an engineering study that proves this wrong.


Of course, you can always run away.

Better to admit that your statement is utter rubbish though, IMHO.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Why don't YOU explain for us all what it means...While you're at it explain what resistance is. No links, just in your own words.




The path that requires less energy extraction from ke is straight down.

It takes more energy to move 1000 tons to the side than it does to just break the structure below.

This is where you're confused.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Just so we know where you're coming from Joey, have you ever had a college or university-level physics class before?

No one is proposing that the building should have been displaced only on the horizontal axis because of the structure below.

If you actually understood these fields, you would have to analyze the forces acting through every column and beam in the structure to see where the total weight distributions would be falling. The greatest amount of weight would automatically and naturally shift to the point of the structure that offers the least resistance, ie where it is already most damaged by the impacts. This is the problem, because neither of the towers favored a path of less resistance into the already-damaged areas, but took the maximum possible amount of resistance, by apparently taking on the entire remaining structure equally at once in a purely vertical direction that stayed seated within the perimeter of the footprints.

The only exception was WTC2's brief lean, before all the floors underneath that leaning section of structure blew out on all sides at the same time, and then the rotation of the upper block was interrupted and it sank down into the cloud of dust and debris and was thoroughly destroyed where no one was able to witness it.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Your knowledge of chemistry is unique. Unfortunately, it is also completely wrong.

If you mix iron sulfide and iron oxide you will end up with a mixture of iron sulfide and iron oxide. Search on "thermite reaction" or read page 23 column 2 line 9 of the Jones' paper you refer to. You will find:

2Al + Fe2O3 --> Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), delta H = - 853.5 kJ/mole.


This is getting old fast... you keep bringing aluminum agents back into the argument. thank you for the citation and note however.

The "thermite" I've been refering to (clearly, several times) is FeS and FeO - note: NO Aluminum. If there are different chemical properties or different names for thermite/thermate I understand. On the other hand you keep going away from the FeS + FeO compound. If you wanna talk only about the Al mix, fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong because you're attributing MY argument to your Aluminum stuff...

By the way that chemical formula you show above is a mix of pure aluminum molecules and Fe2O3 - is this even part of the debate?? The particles found in the dust contain the "thermite" I pictured above with the make-up of the FeS + FeO...

We're beating a dead horse here... arguing about what kinds of chemicals are in thermite when the only actual proof we have is the Jones article thermite, which is seriously argued against by the rigid-belief OS team. There has been no incidence of any if this aluminum-based thermite near the Twin Towers as far as I know.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
ZERO is a very small number. It is not really zero and no chances would be taken with a major conspiracy. Time fuses are the safest but if you like mission impossible radio detonators with red lights, it is your theory.


I'm not sure what age category you fit into (and I don't AT ALL mean this in any negative way; I respect your intelligent conversation), but the idea of a cell phone or any other device accidentally setting of a radio explosive is about as close to zero as it can get. Maybe you're not comfortable with this level of security.

There is NEVER a zero chance of anything I suppose but if a cell phone sends a ping to a device that needs a specific frequency, certain number of digits, etc it's NOT going to accidentally set off explosives any more than it's going to accidentally start your Mercedes. If you try your house key on every Mack truck in America maaybe the key will work but the odds are about as close to zero as one can get.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The path that requires less energy extraction from ke is straight down.


LOL where did you pull that from?

No it isn't. Not if there is RESISTANCE, why do you keep ignoring that?

The path of least resistance is not always down even for a liquid in a fluid system. The path of least resistance is the direction that offers the least resistance to motion, it will be down unless there is resistance in that direction. If you have an open soda can and you crush it, is the soda going to go down through the bottom of the can, or squirt up through the hole in the top?
If something is sitting on the ground is down still its path of least resistance if it's pushed horizontally? If water rolling down a hill hits a damn is down still its path of least resistance?

The path of least/most resistance is exactly what it means! If down has resistance due to it's own structural self then how can that be the path of least resistance? Unless that resistance is removed fast enough to make it the path of least resistance? A collapsing building does not automatically remove the resistance from itself. Resistance is what holds it all together.

Lets analyze your quote, kinetic energy...The energy an object has due to it's motion. How do you extract energy from it's motion, and what has that to do with RESISTANCE? Resistance would retard the motion of the object, retarding it's ke. A wall (we were talking about the path of least resistance for a wall attached on one side of a building) has resistance both stopping it falling straight down (itself) and from falling inside the building (the building itself).

If the building collapses from fire there is nowhere for the walls to go but outward, they're not going to go straight down in a neat pile because the building itself, and the resistance of the wall itself, will force them outwards. Unless there is a vacuum and space created, by the correct placement and detonation of explosives, for the walls to be forced to fall inside the buildings footprint, which is exactly what WTC 7 did, and it's how almost every modern implosion is done.

Look at any natural pancake collapse and will not see the outer walls/facade on top of the piles of floors like we do with WTC 7....



How can the outer walls fall inwards on top of the debris pile if the resistance was not removed from inside the building first?

You are confused not me.

You and your buddy are making a silly argument to try to deny the method of demolition I suggested, and yet I showed proof of the exact method used and you know yourself the 'penthouse kink' is a fact, another fact you desperately try to spin into something else. The kink gives it away, combined with 90D vector symmetry and most of the building falling in it's own footprint, how is it not exactly like a conventional 'implosion' demolition?

You're all hilarious in your lame attempts to not prove your own hypothesis, which most of the time contradict the OS you're defending, but your attempts to smear posters. You guys do nothing but post cheap shots...

All this just to clear up a simple basic physics term just because you don't want it to make sense, you are here simply to confuse and add doubt. You'll prove me correct with your replies to this...

[edit on 6/29/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Like in this conversation, the path of least resistence is that lil red [X] at the top right of the browser


I've never seen such a simple idea beat to death like this ROFL - you all recognize that path of least resistance is common sense to anyone over the age of TWO. Do you take the sidewalk or climb through the bushes...



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Thermo Klein]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


There is, as you correctly surmise, a mishmash of statements. I don't find that particularly strange given what must have been confusing and sometimes quite horrifying circumstances.

I've read a large number of the fire fighters' recollections and, while they sometimes disagree over detail, as far as I can see they mostly support the premise that the building was seriously compromised and that they thought it was going to come down. Some actually say they feared its collapse from 2pm.

I just think it more likely that Reuters picked up this notion wrongly, than that a secretive government conspiracy accidentally issued a press release to say the building they were about to CD had fallen down.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
"I've read a large number of the fire fighters' recollections and, while they sometimes disagree over detail, as far as I can see they mostly support the premise that the building was seriously compromised and that they thought it was going to come down. Some actually say they feared its collapse from 2pm."

Nice try, but still doesn't even come close to explaining a global symmetrical collapse of a building which had sustained limited asymmetrical damage.

"I just think it more likely that Reuters picked up this notion wrongly, than that a secretive government conspiracy accidentally issued a press release to say the building they were about to CD had fallen down."

Actually, what makes a lot more sense is that whoever was feeding this information to the media (now who can that be?) knew the building was pre-rigged with explosives and screwed up by jumping the gun and reporting its collapse too early. The collapse was obviously on the "Official Schedule" of events for that day.

The original collapse of WTC Building 7 was probably planned for several hours earlier, but when things did not go according to plan and the collapse was delayed, somebody screwed up and jumped the gun with the information they had in their possession prior to the building collapsing.

Of course, there is also the possibility of those who provided the information to the media being fortune tellers, who could see into the future. They knew Building 7 would collapse hours in advance and they knew Bin Laden was behind these attacks within hours without doing any investigation whatsoever. Not bad for a Government which was too incompetent to prevent the attacks.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Nice try, but still doesn't even come close to explaining a global symmetrical collapse of a building which had sustained limited asymmetrical damage.


Who to believe? Significant numbers of firefighters and experts. Or some people on the internet who like selling T-shirts... it's a tough one.




Actually, what makes a lot more sense is that whoever was feeding this information to the media (now who can that be?) knew the building was pre-rigged with explosives and screwed up by jumping the gun and reporting its collapse too early. The collapse was obviously on the "Official Schedule" of events for that day.


Why would someone be "feeding" the media this kind of information? I can see the advantage in fingering OBL, but why give out a schedule of the collapses? And who makes that kind of error? It's wildly improbable. My scenario is far more likely.

You are suggesting that there was an Official Schedule written down somewhere, and that someone had the job of releasing it piece by piece. If you think about that for a second you'll see how pointless it would be. Yes, give out innuendo about the perpetrators, that makes sense, but announce the results of your crimes as they occur? Ludicrous.

And it appears you've changed your ideas, which is perhaps indicative of how shaky they are. Yesterday an entire media organisation of 30000 people was "in on it". Today they're not. Can you see how people might struggle to take seriously your version of events when you're altering something like that just to fit your latest "theory"?




Of course, there is also the possibility of those who provided the information to the media being fortune tellers, who could see into the future. They knew Building 7 would collapse hours in advance and they knew Bin Laden was behind these attacks within hours without doing any investigation whatsoever. Not bad for a Government which was too incompetent to prevent the attacks.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]


Why would they need to be fortune tellers? They could see the building was badly compromised and they said they thought it would collapse - this information is there in the testimonies if you care to read them.

Mind you I suppose today they're "in on it". Perhaps tomorrow they won't be.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


Your concept of thermite and thermite chemistry is completely wrong as I have explained to you. You wrote: "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."

Yes, your idea of what thermite is and the rest of the world's idea of what thermite is do vary quite a bit. I truly enjoyed your detailed description of the chemistry and plan to use it as an example.

In case you want to learn about what thermite actually is and how it works, here is a start: en.wikipedia.org...

There is no evidence for demolition of WTC#7 regardless of what a low level technician thinks.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join