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.

 

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

page: 9
133
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Actually I think it was only sections of two steel members and they were not quite sure where they came from. May have even been from structures other than WTC 1,2, and 7.

Hell, for all we know those two pieces may have been in one of the trailers from a completely different job, just wasn't cleaned out very well when they rushed it over to ground zero.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.


The deniers of truth can suppose all they want too
here is someone who actually has a clue


Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.


He is someone who actually knew the condition and construction of things and is actually qualified to havean opinion.


I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


People divide themselves between two sides. All too often it is us in the middle that are right.

Sure I believe the government did something fishy, but I truly doubt they planned anything or did anything other then let a bunch of farmers do their evil deed.

reply to post by Danbones
 


It's nice and all you post this "proof", but as previous posts show, the wtc falling into its footprint makes perfect sense and a thermite reaction can occur naturally. People can say whatever they want with whatever degree they want. It doesn't change math and simulations.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Why is this person qualified and what good is an opinion? If he is so qualified let him prove why.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


EVERYONE is qualified to have an opinion , even you and I .

But , there is a HUGE difference in an Electrical Engineer and Structural Engineer / Architectural Engineer .



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Damn good post! AE911 are by far the most important 9/11 (or 11/9 where I'm from) groups as far a s I'm concerned. We can all state the seemingly obvious but until there is scientific proof of some of these theories a lot of people just brush it off.

This an excellent piece of research and really does go to show how the final report had no intentions at all of getting the truth out.

Brilliant post! S+F good sir



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by Alfie1
 

it was abandoned PRIOR to the attack...
like the aswego message theat kept a huge amount of people from showing up at all that day at WTC
If you don't see that as highly suspect....


I don't know why you think the OEM at WTC 7 had been evacuated prior to any attack on the twin towers. What excuse would have been offered to people and why have none queried since why they were hustled out for no apparent reason ?

In any event Barry Jennings, a truther hero, says he got to WTC 7 after the first plane strike, North Tower at 8.46. He found coffee cups in the OEM still "smoking", so evacuation had only just occurred.

portland.indymedia.org...

The obvious inference is that there was no evacuation prior to at least the first plane strike, which also accords with common sense.

Anyway, back to the question. Why was WTC 7 destroyed ?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Gorman91
not to mention the walls and flame are sufficient enough to create thermite naturally.


Add to this a shredded/powderized aluminum plane and I think you have something here.

I present evidence 1 of aluminum and gypsum (wallboard) producing an alumino-thermitic reaction.



Evidence number 2 is how the whole thing could have started (Imagine a 110-story tower made of aluminum panels on rusted steel columns falling down or being struck by a plane)



But, for some reason when I present this evidence, "debunkers" and "truthers" alike just want to argue.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Nutter]

You have to presume first of all that the 'plane was actually powderised. Shredding implies much larger pieces and would not work. Then there is the building itself, mostly open space?? an engine managed right through didn't it...of course it was a heavy object and so on. Of course in a crash a massive cigar tube ends up in little pieces, but not dust. The only thing I have seen come close to dust was a military jet flown straight into a whacking great piece of solid concrete, the term used there was vapourisation. Now, the building was designed to "withstand an impact from a 707" smaller perhaps, less fuel yes, but it was still a big 'plane. Is the keyword "impact" since both towers did withstand impact from an even bigger jet, but neither survived because of some kind of ancillary complications. The implication there is that a 707 was just as likely to have ultimately the same result and that the buildings would be doomed. Or is it as Dr jones et al say, that it was planted Thermate. Either way, there is a concern that the buildings were inherently vunerable. This thread though is about WT7, which came down in a totally different way.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


You would not need dust. And fyi, when metal rubs on metal, you do get dust. That's how a file works. But you don't need dust. You need heat and a good surface area.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

NIST NCSTAR 1 Draft:
The towers would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.


SO NIST declare that a necessary condition for the collapses was widespread dislodgement of the insulation. But - no aircraft impacted WTC 7 so NIST can't pretend the insulation was "widely dislodged". But still it collapses.

Those complaining the OP video demonstration was unscientific should consider how scientific NIST were in their attempts to prove the necessary condition for collapse at WTC 1 & 2:

Was extensively dislodged insulation observed on recovered steel? No.

So this was merely an hypothesis offered to account for the unprecedented imploding of steel buildings.

In evaluating this hypothesis, did they employ the industry standard test ASTM E736? No.

Instead they used a modified version of the "pull-off" test, ASTM C 1583-04, designed for assessing the tensile strength of concrete surfaces and overlay materials. Nevertheless, the conclusion of this test was that the cohesive and adhesive strengths of the insulation was "considerately greater than the manufacturer's published strength of 295 psf".

Then they attempted a purely mathematical analysis of accelerations that would contribute to losses of fireproofing through forces of vibration but this failed to "establish robust criteria" supportive of the hypothesis.

Finally, they blasted flat steel plates with aluminium pellets from a shotgun at a range of 6 meters. Unsurprisingly, this made holes in the insulation. This was the scientific experiment which "proved" that insulation was widely dislodged by the aircraft.



The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception (PPT)
The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey



[edit on 21-8-2010 by EvilAxis]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


But can you show us where the fireproof rating for WTC7 steel and fireproof coating was for 6-7 hours of direct exposure to fires?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by smurfy
 


You would not need dust. And fyi, when metal rubs on metal, you do get dust. That's how a file works. But you don't need dust. You need heat and a good surface area.
I was actually replying to Nutter in the context of his post, as he is actually putting forward an idea for some kind of thermite reaction occurring naturally. But then, he is talking about the towers, not WT7 or what? If what you say would be the actual scenario, as regards the towers and is the also the "official" theory then what I say must also be true, that a 707 would have brought down the towers. As far as I know, "Withstanding impact" AND also eventual destruction caused by the same entity is not mentioned in the planning and building of the towers.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Have any of you ever been in building 7? It was differently constructed than the twins. It had a huge central atrium and was supported by a few large beams. When one of the support pillars from the twins hit #7 there was a 20 story hole in the building.

No onto the eutectic mixture. Did it form before or after the collapsed? We don't know. Did environmental pollutants cause the reaction? Could pouring water on the burning building produce sulfuric acid or hydrogen sulfide and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up? Sure it can.

Where did the suphur come from? The contents of the building? Drywall, burning rubber and plastics. Ocean salts like sodium sulfate? Which happens to be a catalyst of sulfidation reactions?

A thermodynamiclly controlled test while heating the steal and introducing these substances is needed for absolue proof.

Something the video supplied isn't. It's backyard, uncontrolled garbage. He didn't duplicate the conditions. He didn't have his experiment witnessed. It has no credibility. Once you discount the useless video, there is no proof of anything.

Have you ever read the original report he submitted? He has an agenda.

wtc.nist.gov...

The statement that no conclusive source of the sulphur is known is true. There are numerous explanations for its appearance, reasonable explanations that don't involve thermate.

It would make some people so happy to believe the US murdered 3000 innocent people at the WTC. That in itself is sad. What's worse is they are willing to believe an experiment which has no scientiffic value. How on earth do you even know that he actually did what he claimed? A weeks worth of film condensed into a few minutes.... And even if he aired the weeks worth of video uncut his materials were not verified. And were not in the same condition as the WTC bldg 7.

If you want to claim thermate was used then you'd better have real proof. Not this garbage

And to the micronuke crowd. Where are the EMP phenomenon?

Some of you want so badly to prove the government did this that you ignore common sense and basic science.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This from peoplw who've probably never used thermite in they're entire lives!. If you had used "enough" thermite to bring down a building that larger it would STILL be burning!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
This from peoplw who've probably never used thermite in they're entire lives!. If you had used "enough" thermite to bring down a building that larger it would STILL be burning!

[edit on 20-8-2010 by CosmosKid]

[edit on 20-8-2010 by CosmosKid]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 




And yet all of the questions you ask are not answered by anyone, but since the government that you so blindly follow hasn't even considered them questions that is fine for you... what is real sad is that your unconditional support for your government is all the proof YOU need and clouds every aspect of your reasoning, therefore impossible to get close to any truths.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 



Have any of you ever been in building 7? It was differently constructed than the twins.


Yet it still managed to undergo near free fall accelerations during collapse.


When one of the support pillars from the twins hit #7 there was a 20 story hole in the building.


20 story hole in one side of the the building, but it still managed to collapse in a very symmetrical fashion. So how much did this 20 story hole affect the structure?


No onto the eutectic mixture. Did it form before or after the collapsed? We don't know. Did environmental pollutants cause the reaction? Could pouring water on the burning building produce sulfuric acid or hydrogen sulfide and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up? Sure it can.


What materials in the building would produce sulfuric acid when water is poured over them while they are hot? If NIST thought this was likely, they would have performed experiments to prove it.


Where did the suphur come from? The contents of the building? Drywall, burning rubber and plastics. Ocean salts like sodium sulfate? Which happens to be a catalyst of sulfidation reactions?

A thermodynamiclly controlled test while heating the steal and introducing these substances is needed for absolue proof.


Yet for some reason NIST didn't think it would be a good idea to attempt to prove this hypothesis, which has been disproven in the OP video.


Something the video supplied isn't. It's backyard, uncontrolled garbage. He didn't duplicate the conditions. He didn't have his experiment witnessed. It has no credibility. Once you discount the useless video, there is no proof of anything.


So sitting the beam in a fire large enough to get it red hot for longer than the fires burned in WTC7 is not duplicating the conditions enough? He did more than duplicate them, he gave the OS hypothesis the best possible chance to produce some sort of effect and it did not. Who do you think it witnessing all these similar experiments and research in universities etc? It is far more credible than any attempt to prove the OS hypothesis or disprove the thermate hypothesis.


There are numerous explanations for its appearance, reasonable explanations that don't involve thermate.


But which can't be replicated with experimentation.


It would make some people so happy to believe the US murdered 3000 innocent people at the WTC. That in itself is sad.


I don't think it would make many people happy, but just because a belief doesn't make you happy that does not mean it is not the truth. If you want to believe whatever makes you happy then good for you, to some of us the truth is more important. What is sad is the murderers of 3000 innocent people getting off scott-free.


What's worse is they are willing to believe an experiment which has no scientiffic value. How on earth do you even know that he actually did what he claimed? A weeks worth of film condensed into a few minutes.... And even if he aired the weeks worth of video uncut his materials were not verified. And were not in the same condition as the WTC bldg 7.


It's just another nail in the coffin. AE911truth is a highly credible organization so I would expect no less from this experiment. Don't base your beliefs on one experiment though, the amount of evidence disproving the OS is overwhelming.


If you want to claim thermate was used then you'd better have real proof. Not this garbage


This was not an attempt to prove thermate, it merely disproves the OS hypothesis. There has been other research done to prove thermite/thermate.


And to the micronuke crowd. Where are the EMP phenomenon?


The micronuke crowd are in the same category as the holographic planes and laser beam crowd.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DrJay1975
 



Some of you want so badly to prove the government did this that you ignore common sense and basic science.


Nobody wants the government to have done this, it's a hard reality to face. The only people ignoring common sense and science are those who desperately want the government not to have done it and can't bear to face the implications of believing the government to have done it.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 



what is real sad is that your unconditional support for your government is all the proof YOU need and clouds every aspect of your reasoning


The amusing irony is that he proclaims in his avatar to be the voice of reason.

reply to post by CosmosKid
 



This from peoplw who've probably never used thermite in they're entire lives!. If you had used "enough" thermite to bring down a building that larger it would STILL be burning!


If you believe the OS then it must not have needed that much as it was able to collapse at near free fall with just fire and gravity! I also hardly think it would still be burning almost a decade on.





[edit on 20-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

Hooper:
are YOU qualified?
and if you can prove you are,
then you too can prove why...

but I guess the international panel of qualified experts isnt a good thing because they would be bound to mess up your theories.
they'll likely be antisemantic


[edit on 20-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 

NIST won't make their math model public...
and they stopped short of the actual collapse
so really NIST can't even prove the buildings collapsed
let alone why they collapsed...
jeeeeeze
*Facepalm*




top topics



 
133
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join