AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 6
133
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
EEk ok allow me to re-iterate...when i say "why care about building 7" i didnt mean WE shouldn't care about what happened...rather why would a federal agency care about lvling bldg 7. Like what would the point of them dropping that one bldg down along with the 2 towers...that's what i meant. Why would they want to risk exposing themselves in doing something so nefarious for that building in particular?




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by StumpDrummer
 


Ah but what if the holes happened after the burning and after the collapses? Funny how some people did not bother to think that far ahead. It is understood that hot corrosion can very well be the cause of the corrosion of steel. The "pile" was heated by fires, the steel was rusting which also creates heat in large amounts, there were plenty of caustic elements and compounds in the pile, the entire environment was corrosive to the buried steel. Sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acids, are just two of the corrosive gases and liquids that were discovered in abundance in the pile for weeks after 9/11. Emissions actually increased as time progressed. Now what could have caused this? The abundance of gypsom and wallboard. They contain sulfur which would have been released upon decay of the gypsom in the heat and moisture. Sulfur dioxide was released and great amounts (also from other sources, such as the fuel, plastics, etc), and it is widely known that this is a very corrosive gas to steel. This sulfur dioxide also mixed with water to form sulfuric acid, another emission that increased after the collapses. Sulfuric acids are very corrosive. It was not just one single source or reason for the observed corrosion of the steel. It was a huge and various combinations of these processes that did this to the steel. I have yet to see a single TM member to ever step outside the box and think critically of what could and probably did happen afterwards.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I don't think anybody is disputing that heat affects steel.

However notice in the Fox video that the steel folded and bent once it lost strength.

This is different to total loss of strength which we see in wtc 7.

For there to be free fall speed there has to be zero resistance.

If the beams in wtc 7 failed in the way the video suggests then what should have been seen would be a slow sagging slumping sort of movement as the temperature went up and the steel began to lose strength.

It would not be the case that the temperature would be applied and then all of a sudden the entire building would suddenly just give up.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 



For there to be free fall speed there has to be zero resistance.


Zero is an absolute. Can you prove with the same level of certitude the fall speed? Nope. The fall speed or velocity was ESTIMATED, albeit closely, by observation of the videos.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by bigyin
 



For there to be free fall speed there has to be zero resistance.


Zero is an absolute. Can you prove with the same level of certitude the fall speed? Nope. The fall speed or velocity was ESTIMATED, albeit closely, by observation of the videos.


Well the steel beam in the Fox video above failed in slow mation. You can see that it bends a long way before it actually gives up.

For the same process to apply to wtc 7 we would see a part of the building bend and slump or move long before it fell down.

We don't see this.

Not forgetting there is no fire in large parts, even most of the building. So where is the fire that is supposed to produce so much heat to cause all the steel to fail ?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Fair point, but what if the said steel slumped the same way while connected? This is also known as creep, where the steel begins to expand, deform, and sag from the flames and heat and loads. It was reported by firefighters and some personell that WTC7 was indeed leaning towards the South prior to collapsing. They even put a surveyor transit on the building to measure the creep of the building. Wouldnt this be ample evidence of the steel beginning to fail from the uncontrolled fires raging inside? i would think so!



This is/was a clear indicator of structural instability and progressing failure of the structure from the fires. Firefighters are trained to be on the look out for such signs of impending failure. Dont forget also that the WTC7 was collapsing for nearly 18 seconds, starting with the penthouse. Wouldnt that show signs of progressive failure?




".. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."


web.archive.org...://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Edited to add proper link


[edit on 8/19/2010 by GenRadek]

[edit on 8/19/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
Someone mentioned scalar weapon?Watch 4 seconds in on the lower left hand side of the tower.Watch the white light cut across the tower.Could be paper but it seems to go upward into the smoke and is too straight to be paper floating around.

www.youtube.com...


Watch videos from other angles. It's simply the sunlight coming through a break in the smoke.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There is a good reason that the Thermite theory cannot explain the collapse of the WTC towers. It does not explain the pulverization of concrete and steel nor the physics of the collapses.
This does not mean that Thermite was not used. On the contrary, I think the evidence is incontrovertible.



My belief is that the thermite was sprayed on the beams when they were supposedly doing the fireproofing for the buildings.

What actually brought down the towers was either a micronuke or some type of directed energy weapon.
Thermite would not have caused the towers to collapse in upon themselves, some portion would have toppled over during the fall.
By using multiple sources of possible collapse, the planners of 9/11 set yet another trap to confuse and mislead research into the causes of the structural failures.

Very good video. Thanks for sharing!

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Asktheanimals]


There were many beams cut in angles.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectnsearch
Again, look at the evidence and watch all the evidence that Dimitri Khalezov has before you say that it CAN'T be because until you know how the technology works, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nothing else turns steel to DUST! High Explosives doesn't do it and Thermate and Thermite can't do it, so that means that it had to be something else involved. Beam weapons are possible but why go after a beam weapon theory when there is TONS of evidence for the micro nuke.

Again, go look at this page and ALL the evidence and tell me how a beam weapon causes Tritium levels to go to 55 times normal! Only a nuke of some type would do that and that was the ORIGINAL plan as Dimitri heard as a member of the Soviet nuclear forces in the 70's! In fact, they got a BIG chuckle out of the crazy Americans wanting to demolish the Twin towers someday with a micro nuke because our government had to FILE that plan with the Russians as that was protocol for either super power to use their demolition nukes!

It's funny how these people that cry "no micro nukes" post madly how it can't be but NEVER address all of Dimitri's evidence. They don't even watch his videos.

For instance, one of the big lies of 911 was when our government gave all the workers "air quality" badges that were the same size as a nuclear radiation badge. They were flat cards as thin as credit card. They were EXACTLY the same size and thickness of a radiation badge except these badges were WHITE and unmarked! If they were really air quality badges then how come no company name on them? This is exactly the cover story they would have used. Again this radiation would have been very contained to the very center of the molten core so it would not kill you unless you got a very high dose and as they rotated people out they would have minimized it but I think this explains all the crazy cancers that came out of this.

Again if you would have looked at the evidence, a micro nuke designed to take down a building is carefully designed to pulverize all the material of the building to dust that is in the crush zone but it does that without ANY explosion because the nuke is buried. However since there were cracks and fissures and steam coming up, there was some radiation for a while before the molten material left behind cooled.

Still more evidence comes from the fact that they couldn't cool the area down fully until 6 months which is exactly how long it would take to cool off the molten material using every technology available. They were pulling molten steel out of the hole for months.

And finally, they didn't call it "Ground Zero" for nothing! Look it up in the dictionary and it will say "The area immediately above or below a NUCLEAR explosion. They put it right in your face. LOL


I've never seen any evidence of micro-nukes. As has been pointed out, there was no steel dust found at the WTC site that I've ever seen. There is also no example in existence of any building being demolished with a micro-nuke. How do I know? Because I know the laws of physics are rarely wrong.

If you really believe a micro-nuke went off, then I have a challenge for you. You can bet $1,000 along with 100 other people who believe you. Then I'll bet $2,000 you are wrong and put the money in escrow. If the excavated dirt shows signs of being glassed over and radioactive, then you get the money from all the people who put $2,000 in escrow. As for your side's $100,000, you can spend it to excavate the dirt.

There is zero evidence of micro-nukes from the WTC site. Ash from fires often has naturally elevated radiation levels.

As for tritium levels being 55 times normal, maybe that is normal for an office fire. And maybe not. Either way, I've never seen any evidence that tritium levels were 55 times normal at the WTC site.

I've never seen anything about clean-up workers having card-size air quality badges either even though I have read a few of the micro-nuke threads which were not the slightest bit convincing.

Hydraulic pressure works in all direction. Once a micro-nuke cracks through the basement of the WTC it will instantly expand in all directions, most notably outside the FIRST FLOOR, seeing how MAXIMUM RESISTANCE would be going up through each floor. The windows would be blown out from the bottom up. But that isn't what happened.

The idea that the blast wave would travel through WTC1 & 2 as if it were a solid rock is ridiculous and it makes zero sense. To a geologist without engineering knowledge (like the one advocating the theory) it may make sense on some level but to someone who knows about thermodynamics it makes zero sense at all.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 



EEk ok allow me to re-iterate...when i say "why care about building 7" i didnt mean WE shouldn't care about what happened...rather why would a federal agency care about lvling bldg 7. Like what would the point of them dropping that one bldg down along with the 2 towers...that's what i meant. Why would they want to risk exposing themselves in doing something so nefarious for that building in particular?


Please... take 20 minutes to watch these two videos, and whatever you don't believe, follow the links/leads in your own research. I am not saying it is the gospel, but if you are seriously interested in answers to your questions - and seeing the opposing side's view... then please take the time to study.

The motive is the least dubious aspect of the supposed "9/11 Conspiracy".

Clearly, the motive part has been well established.

The only thing that people disagree on, is the degree to which those in power would act on those motives.

I repost:









posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 



Well the steel beam in the Fox video above failed in slow mation. You can see that it bends a long way before it actually gives up.


I see the beam go from normal form to fail in less than 240 seconds. That's not exactly watching grass grow. And the final failure actually happened in a fraction of a second as would be expected.


For the same process to apply to wtc 7 we would see a part of the building bend and slump or move long before it fell down.


Again, you are relying on a few fuzzy videos, taken from some distance. We know surveryors were called in because it was thought that the building was starting to deform.


We don't see this.


Please don't conflate what is missing with what does not exist.


Not forgetting there is no fire in large parts, even most of the building. So where is the fire that is supposed to produce so much heat to cause all the steel to fail ?


Well, you see that's been the problem all along. All the steel in a building need not fail for the building to fail. Most folks understand this intuitively but for some reason it needs to be repeated here over and over and over again. Just like the "melting" stuff. None of the steel needed to be turned into a liquid state in order for it to stop functioning as a support.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There is a good reason that the Thermite theory cannot explain the collapse of the WTC towers. It does not explain the pulverization of concrete and steel nor the physics of the collapses.
This does not mean that Thermite was not used. On the contrary, I think the evidence is incontrovertible.
My belief is that the thermite was sprayed on the beams when they were supposedly doing the fireproofing for the buildings.
What actually brought down the towers was either a micronuke or some type of directed energy weapon.
Thermite would not have caused the towers to collapse in upon themselves, some portion would have toppled over during the fall.
By using multiple sources of possible collapse, the planners of 9/11 set yet another trap to confuse and mislead research into the causes of the structural failures.

Very good video. Thanks for sharing!

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Asktheanimals]


Could it be this Enjoy!!



Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
(index)

by

Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison
www.drjudywood.com...

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect (New Paper by Judy Wood/John Hutchison) (ATS)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hutchison Effect and 9/11 - Part 1a


Hutchison Effect and 9/11 - Part 1b


Hutchison Effect and 9/11 - Part 1c



Full 60 min video
9/11 - WTC Destruction and the Hutchison Effect - Part 1
www.mirrorfox.com...



Scientists See WTC - Hutchison Effect Parallel
On a Washington DC local radio station, WPFW, Scientists discuss true nature of destruction of WTC Complex on 9/11 and conclude it was related to a known effect
www.prlog.org...


9/11 Firefighter Interview- "Collapsed to Dust"


9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Perhaps the real question is: What can 'we' do about all this evidence? Is sending this video and emails and requests to NIST going to change anything? Its deeply unsettling to me that the topic of 9/11 being a pre planned event is such a taboo topic for so many Americans.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
WoW you do realize what your claiming right? That basically our government and Military yep they're pretty much all a bunch of satanic Devil worshiping freaks, who wanted nothing more than to see over 3000 Americans loose their lives that day all in the name of a vendetta WoW (deep breath). Get Real, yes I'll give you the fact that at least two different administrations were warned and only the second administration acted. The informant who passed this message along was lagit and was killed. A fake war yea ok and I know many who would love for us to continue to believe this. When do you STOP pointing the finger at the GOVERNMENT. WE were attacked that's clear and know matter what lead up to the events most will stop at nothing and spare no expense to finish us off Iran is hard at work on that one as we speak how about some support our troops are still dying sheesh.....

[edit on 19-8-2010 by jayde]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayde
WoW you do realize what your claiming right? That basically our government and Military yep they're pretty much all a bunch of satanic Devil worshiping freaks, who wanted nothing more than to see over 3000 Americans loose their lives that day all in the name of a vendetta WoW (deep breath).


For you to make the claim that an assumption is being made that the ENTIRE U.S. Govt. and Military conspired to create the 9/11 attacks displays your complete and utter lack of education.

Did our entire govt. kill Kennedy? No. There are many many honest hard working and unbelievably talented people who work for our govt. Any fool that has the ability to read could piece together that it was small factions of our govt. working trans-nationally with diff. players abroad to make such an event happen.

The OP presented an astoundingly accurate presentation complete with scientific data directly disproving & refuting our govt's claims, and all you can come back with is "...don't listen to this guy, support our troops?"

It would do you well to educate yourself before giving us all the Ted Nugent treatment, or at least get off your high horse.






[edit on 19-8-2010 by NightVision]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by NightVision]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


Most just don't buy the theories that's all...there is no proof to substantiate ANY of these claims...has nothing to do with not facing any demons or coming to terms with a wicked government...



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeddun

Most just don't buy the theories that's all...there is no proof to substantiate ANY of these claims...has nothing to do with not facing any demons or coming to terms with a wicked government...


You mean other than the OP's video that directly proves scientifically that the building's steel was artificially altered?

Your posts are the very definition of ignorance.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


BRAVO should I pop open the bubbly after all that crap? what is the purpose of that lame excuse of a video other then to show that conspiracy is still at play. I mean after all the sites name is ATS ABOVE TOP SECRET. You can decorate that garbage anyway you want. I"M NOT SOLD! I've been on this site plenty of times just not as a memeber I guess you can call me the LURKER HI ALL! anyway I've been on enough to know the WTC is looked at by many as one major scandle is this video disputing that?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


And one more thing where was all your sceintific data when people where jumping out of buildings and running around screaming for their LIVES!



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jayde


BRAVO should I pop open the bubbly after all that crap? what is the purpose of that lame excuse of a video other then to show that conspiracy is still at play. I mean after all the sites name is ATS ABOVE TOP SECRET. You can decorate that garbage anyway you want. I"M NOT SOLD! I've been on this site plenty of times just not as a memeber I guess you can call me the LURKER HI ALL! anyway I've been on enough to know the WTC is looked at by many as one major scandle is this video disputing that?


Wow. You really don't read, do you. I was referencing the OP's video. Not the above video. Next time, try a little more comprehension before exposing your posts as retarded.





top topics
 
133
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join