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.

 

WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 17
104
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

People will wake up when CDers start backing up their extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.

I think NIST need to be the ones providing us with evidence. NIST haven't explained, quantitatively, how the towers collapsed. Their computer models, which is all the evidence they provide, stop at the collapse initiation and doesn't even bother documenting how the towers crumbled in 10 seconds (as measured by Colombia University via seismic data). Proponents of the controlled demolition theory have more evidence than those who say the collapse was natural (chaotic). We have mathematical proofs, foreknowledge, telltale characteristics of controlled demolition and chemical evidence, inter alia. What do NIST have? Nothing but computer models. Computer models which they've steadfastly refused to be released for independent verification despite a number of FOIA requests under the pretence that it might "jeopardize public safety".

As for the case with WTC7, it does not take an expert to realise that the chances of 24 huge steel support columns inside, and 57 columns around the perimeter of WTC7, all failing at exactly the same time because of fire and damage from failing debris from the towers is highly improbable. And the chances of a steel structure falling through itself symmetrically at pure freefall acceleration for 120 feet without any resistance is impossible unless the columns are forcibly removed ahead of time and the only thing that can realistically do that is explosives. Personally, I would be more than happy to believe the towers and WTC7 collapsed from fire, if I was provided with convincing evidence. NIST don't have any actual evidence though, only assumptions and calculations (which include models). The mere fact that NIST didn't do any chemical testing for explosives (which violates NFPA code and which independent investigators have found evidence for) shows that NIST didn't carry out a fair and unbiased investigation.

Oh, and flashes were caught moments before the towers collapsed. It also depends on what sort of explosives were used. The explosives used were probably unconventional, so they may not exhibit all the same characteristics associated with standard demolition explosives. Still, there are videos and eye-witness testimonies attesting to explosion sounds from the towers and WTC7. This is common knowledge and only takes 10 seconds on Google to verify. At the end of the day, all we're asking for is something better than computer models. Is that too much to ask? We need empirical evidence, and NIST haven't provided a scintilla.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Nathan-D because: Grammatical error




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
now the plane that hit the empire state building was a b-25 bomber.....it was 15tons
It hit on the 79th floor of the building....so there are still 23 floors on top.


The B25 weighed 15 tons and was travelling at approximately 200mph, hitting a building who's structure comprised of reinforced concrete, steel and masonry.

The 767's weighed upwards of 120 tons, and were travelling in excess of 400mph, and hit a building made of 36cm square tubular steel walls welded/bolted together, lightweight concrete flooring and floor trusses bolted to the outer walls and to a steel frame core wrapped in fireproofing materials.

In other words, the planes at the WTC weighed 8 times more, and were travelling more than twice as fast, flying into a "lightweight" construction as opposed to a "dense" one.

Trying to compare the two impacts is like trying to compare apples to coal.

As a structural engineer, you should be aware of that.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Actually, the evidence is given by NIST and other engineers. It's the proponents of explosives and other conspiracy theories that need empirical evidence.

Read this:
www.civil.northwestern.edu...
It's from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics March of 2007, just so you know.

Show me your math and video of undeniable explosive flashes, and this other "empirical evidence" you seem to have seen. I can bet you that you have simply fallen victim to clever rhetoric that has convinced you the way a preacher convinces a crowd of religious people what God's word is.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


The official explanation is that the beams and columns were weakened (not melted, just to be clear) by the heat. The initial plane crash already made the structure weaker and out of balance, making certain columns and beams carry a load greater than normal. The combination of the two eventually initiated a chain reaction, making column after column fail, finally resulting in one massive collapse when all columns on the floor failed.

What part exactly is obviously wrong? That the planes damaged the structural integrity? That this damage resulted in an uneven load on the beams and columns? That the heat weakened the steel? That when one beam or column fails, all that load will be transferred to others, making it more likely those will fail also?

To me this all makes sense. I don't want to believe anything. I am not an American, and I despise the American foreign policy. I won't mind seeing the bush administration being brought to justice for starting illegal wars. Or for doing something like 911 for that matter. So all this denial nonsense does not apply to me.


edit on 8-9-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
After all that has been posted on the internet and conspiracy TV, I believe that it is very possible there were explosions set off inside the towers at one point. To me it actually seems like the best option available at that time, if the buildings weren't brought down via demolition then they would have fallen over or tumbled in a miscellaneous direction killing more people and probably bringing down other buildings nearby. THINK ABOUT IT !



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Yes i am well aware of that but they are relevant...but it is showing real world comparisions....there are three buildings involved here...but hey we will just believe in coincedence wont we.

you show me where any other steel frame buildings have come down due to fire....

Please.

Start presenting evidence to show your reasons for believing three steel frame buildings came down due to fire...that is the OS.

IT is not due to the fact they were hit by planes....IT is FIRE.

So time for you to show some proof.....none of what i have said is unresonable....and it is better just believing something so improbable of this event taking out these buildings.

but i am thinking this is the way to shut people up isn't it...but it will not work....as i amongst many others in the trade would be so silly to believe such hogwash....i with others are not denying the building could have come down....we don't believe through knowledge and understanding of the construction of Steel building believe they would on three acounts come down in a top down collapse.

but like a i say Nef your obviously the expert and other experts in the field are wrong.

I shall never want to design another building again. cause i now know that steel frame buildings just collapse upon themselves even though in the history of steel frame building....NOT ONE....till these three EVER ....have come down in this fashion due to fire.

BUT hey I am just another structural engineer with my head up my ass.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Have you read this?
www.civil.northwestern.edu...

They are not the NIST report, but an engineering group, and at the bottom they cite ALL their references. Maybe you should do some research?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


just as i posted to Nef....not once has a steel framed building come down due to fire....especially in a topdown collapse....but hey i am just a lowly structural Engineer that has been trying to show how things occur in the real world.

as many other engineers agree with me...and i agree with them.

I have in this thread shown many things that occur in structural failures...it is not neat and tidy...steel buildings do not just drop in top down collapses...especially due to fire...but hey you believe as you wish...but least some of us try to show evidence of why they would not come down as they have...in one istance maybe....possibly two....but in three instances on the same day....not likely.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


My question is which part of the official explanations exactly is wrong and you answer that steel building just do not collapse like that. And you again say that I "wish" to believe something. By what line of reasoning did you come to that conclusion?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


God you are so singlle minded i could do exactly the same as that has been discounted many times so i will say the same to you....do some reasearch. do say that to me ...are you in the trade...nooooo...i heard you say that...there are many reasons progressive collapse did not occur.


But i guess i should go back to school....progressive collapse due to external forces is a very complicated theory at the best of time CEPT within Controlled Demolitions.

source

would you like me to post the other 100+ articals that comment on why progressive collapse would not be a logical happening in one let alone all three structures.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 



Thats right steel steel !! go ask an Iron worker that has built the 2 towers Especially the Mohawk Iron Workers

I have ask a couple of them and they all say the same thing NO way a plane would bring it down !
the Buildings were made to withstand an Airliner impact and a high Scale Earthquakes
the Inner is 5 Rodded Beams and the Outer Structure is the Frame Work that supports the majority load ...

As i said before you think the Architects would design a Structure that would drop to a free fall into it own footprint ! ( I say yes but not the Free Fall! )
after the incident of the 1945 Military plane B25 Bomber Especially that the Famed Kennedy Airport is close by!! let alone High Traffic the goes through the Air Space... it NEW YORK CITY Duh!

Even if those planes had a full load of fuel the Fuel they would carry would not heat up to the melting point of steel nor iron is there any proof of plane crashes with the fuel fire causing the structure of the plane to melt !?
the majority of the plane let alone a steel building ? 3,000 F Melting point of Steel Kerosene 700F
Plube has shown some examples of pics of that


Twin Tower Fires Not Hot Enough to Melt or Weaken Steel! Fire Could Not Have Brought Down Towers!



edit on 8-9-2010 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)




edit on 8-9-2010 by Wolfenz because: missing letters



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia
 


God you are so singlle minded i could do exactly the same as that has been discounted many times so i will say the same to you....do some reasearch. do say that to me ...are you in the trade...nooooo...i heard you say that...there are many reasons progressive collapse did not occur.


But i guess i should go back to school....progressive collapse due to external forces is a very complicated theory at the best of time CEPT within Controlled Demolitions.

source

would you like me to post the other 100+ articals that comment on why progressive collapse would not be a logical happening in one let alone all three structures.


See, this I can't understand. I provide a link compiled by a large number of engineers with many sources and no rhetoric, just evidence, math, and explanations about how they cannot analyze certain things due to the towers becoming obscured by smoke, dust, and debris.

All you do is say, "NOOO, that's a bad link. People have said it's wrong." And then you post a link to a man who disagrees and shows his rhetorical ideas on the matter with no math and no evidence. Just apparent appearances.

Please, show me where the math and science in the link I posted is wrong.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Varemia because: Clarified a sentence



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Because your words were "the official explaination says the beams weakened"

that is Nist now if the beams were just weakened then that throws up SOOOOOO many more flags as the why the building would not come down in the fashion that the did.

THE central cores of the buildings in both were extramely substantial....it would be like peeling a banana....the floor would fall....the sides would fall away.....and as the mass start to reach closer to ground level the core would still be standing quite prominently.....unless they were taken out at lower levels.

the pancaking position always seem to leave out the effect on the core.

the core It self would NOT pancake onto itself.

al the floors go up around the core of the structure.....but i am sure i am wrong...and will have have another expert back me up on this....which i know many will.






edit on 033030p://f25Wednesday by plube because: spelling



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Actually, the evidence is given by NIST and other engineers.

What evidence (besides computer models) has NIST presented?


Show me your math

Google "Gordon Ross journal studies on momentum transfer" for an informative paper that shows how mathematically impossible the collapses were under the OS. You need a relatively good understanding of physics though otherwise most of it will just be abstruse.


I can bet you that you have simply fallen victim to clever rhetoric that has convinced you the way a preacher convinces a crowd of religious people what God's word is.

I'm sure I have.


and video of undeniable explosive flashes, and this other "empirical evidence" you seem to have seen.

There are a dozen or so very fast flashes before the towers collapse. I'll try and find the video on YouTube later when I have more time on my hands.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Nathan-D because: Truncated



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


you know what.....i did not say the link was bad...progressive collapse has been shown not to be the case in skyscrapers with a central core.....you are just annoying....show you the maths.....tell you what you do the maths.

you pick out one thing and think it is true....and tell me to do the research ...and then i show you a counter and then you tell me to show you the math.

you can see the maths and the examples in the pdf you so proudly showed me...but now ...do the maths with a central core and where the maths include the fact that before the top of the tower burst into oblivion before even hitting the floors below you should not be asking me for the math...but wheres the mass to even fit the mathematics of that paper.

that very paper has been disproven in the case of the towers as being a reasonable explanation for a progressive collapse....so you go do some research.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


very well stated wolf....nice to see someone else with a logical brain....your right ...it is how skyscrapers are designed and i did say that once you get above the 50 floor mark it is common practice.

I have been showing pics and hard evidence throughout this whole thread...and pointing out the fires were not even hot enough to touch the aluminium cladding.....let alone the steel.
going to give you a star.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


But isn't that exactly what happened? The outer walls collapsed and the central core was still standing moments after that. The central core finally collapsed as result of the damage caused by the debris form the outer wall at the base.

I don't see how any of this is a problem for the official explanation.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
SImple thing really....central cores do NOT just collapse....Unless helped along the way....the steel in the central core is soo substantial....in an open plan structure of say 10 to 20 stories with no central core then no problem.

The central core is there for a reason in skyscrapers it is the reason why we even have been able to build so high...it is what makes the building structurally sound by giving it it's instrengh which enables it to withstand the high wind speeds at hieght and YES aslo plane impacts.

now the twin towers core was no weak structure that would just fall in on itself. once again i will show a pic.



That core is not just going to collapse on itself...that is partly why soooo many engineers could not believe we we were seeing with our own eyes....it just does not make sense.

I am really trying to be helpful here in helping people to understand....i work almost everyday and do not like to spend my time explaining...but it is important..I have nothing to gain by this...but i also do not like when TPTB take us to be ignorant.




edit on 033030p://f46Wednesday by plube because: grammar



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It didn't collapse by itself, the top floors and outer walls crashed on it with enormous energies. Are you trying to say that such a devastating event would not damage the central core?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
i am saying exactly that...there are 47 inner core columns doing the job they were designed to do with great ellegance.....if you look in the pic the path in the collapse would take the path of least resistance....the two wide sides would go unevenly compared to the two short spans on either end....there is no way in my honest opinion that the buildings would have come down evenly without some sort of interference on the inner core.

in order to fold in on itself the inner core would need to be taken out first...it is like you would have to take out the support of the inner core so it falls down dragging the floors from the centre down with it so until you do that the floors would want to fold in around the inner core.

no we have been discussing the two towers....now WTC7 is absolutely spectacular in itself....like I say three buildings and one of a completely different layout.

Common sense tells me not possible....educated sense says not possible.

but I think i have made many valid points and i will put together another thread...as i did say i will present the money trail side of things....that i hope will lead to the true perpetrators of this this rather than some silly story that a few ill trained pilots from cessna flight schools were even able to fly these planes into the buildings...then that might also help.

this whole story is sooo full of holes and the poor people who lost their lives deserve the truth...and Americans deserve the truth even more it you are willing to listen.

i would hope you agree on that.



edit on 043030p://f17Wednesday by plube because: grammar and spelling...




top topics



 
104
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join