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.

 

Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


What do you mean by "not what we see in any of the videos"? You don't see the top section falling down while everything beneath it is being crushed?




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No the floors below the top are blown THEN the top falls down as it looses support. Not the other way around as you can see in the video. The top follows the "collapse", it doesn initiate it at all. Try playing the moments before the "collapse" frame by frame.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


What is wrong with the idea that just part of the concrete turned into dust? Must it either be all or nothing? If so, why? And again, gravity is the force that is pulling straight down.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No the floors below the top are blown THEN the top falls down as it looses support. Not the other way around as you can see in the video. The top follows the "collapse", it doesn initiate it at all. Try playing the moments before the "collapse" frame by frame.

Okay fine, where is the part that did not turn into dust? The WTC was over 100.000 tons I think, where did it all go. We did not see one floor stacked atop the other at ground zero.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


They were not blown, the columns failed. Only after that, the crush down starts, when the top section had already fallen some meters. You can't see most of it on video, because it is obscured by dust. The concrete in the floors turned into rubble. Rocks of various sizes. Like when you throw a stack of plates on the ground. You wont find a perfectly stacked pile of broken plates, you will find total chaos.
edit on 20-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You can see enough, the floors below are blown, then the top falls, actually as it starts to fall it didnt pick up speed yet, so it catches up to the sequence of explosion for a couple of frames. also the top part is the same material as the floors below, why would the top part stay intact and act as a pile driver pulverizing the floors below? Also you can clearly see the top rotating around its axis, had it encountered resistance the top would have tilted over and fallen off to the side. For it to continue straight down it must not have encountered a significant amount of resistance, which means whatever held the towers together was removed or blown.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I don't see what you see. Expert that spends decades of their lives studying phenomenal like this also did not see what you see.

I really don't understand what you are getting at here. Is your theory that they planted bombs all over the floors, which turned all the concrete to dust? Why one earth would anyone do that? I don't think this has ever been done in any controlled demolition. And for a good reason, as it makes no sense whatsoever. In a controlled demolition you target the crucial structural supports, and you try to use as little explosives as possible. Especially in a case where you want to do it as discrete as possible. The floors are not the crucial structural supports, so in a controlled demolition the damage explosives would do to the floor would be minimal. It would not help the building collapse when you blow up the concrete.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


That experts dont see what I see is a lie. In fact I talked to somebody educated on the subject and he pointed out to me what I reproduced to you. The top is not initiating the collapse, it is following the "collapse". I am curious what all those explosions are then, or those things that look and sound like explosions, for arguments sake. Sooo the puffs of smoke we see are not explosions at all but the floors pancaking on top of each other pressing the air out of the windows, is that what you want to say?
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Which expert would that be? And has he published his findings yet? If not, why?

As for the puffs, yes those are from compressed air. Just like the puffs you see for example here: www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackrBecause potential energy is transfered to kinetic energy from the moment mass starts to fall. Realize that the potential energy is magnitudes greater than the energy released from explosives in a controlled demolition. So the notion that explosive cause all that destruction is very far fetched.


The problem is that word CONTROLLED.

In a NORMAL controlled demolition that is true. What happened to WTC7 looks like a normal controlled demolition.

What happened to WTC1 and WTC2 was not the NORMAL variety. The objective of a normal demolition is to cut the supports and let gravity do all of the work and minimize external damage. Hurling multi-ton beams 600 feet is not the usual desired objective in such a demolition. Enough explosives to do that would make the operation much more expensive, especially because of the lawsuits.

WTC 1 & 2 looks like a Shock & Awe operation and the Potential Energy of the building could not have done all of that.

CONTROLLED means it does what the controllers want. The mass above the impact zone of WTC1 could not crush everything below. Something else had to take it out. An accurate simulation should show that. But an accurate simulation cannot be done without correct info on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every LEVEL. And every one that claims to understand Newtonian Physics should agree with that.

Of course nothing like the destruction of WTCs 1 & 2 had ever been done before. Sometimes I wonder if they over did it and now regret it.

9/11 is now a global educational and psychological problem. American psychologists and psychiatrists can't do grade school Newtonian physics. Maybe they should build these for THERAPY.

www.youtube.com...

5th graders should not have a problem doing it. LOL

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings designed before 1969. What sense does that make? And then the physicists don't demand the information. Even less sense.

psik
edit on 20-12-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Which expert would that be? And has he published his findings yet? If not, why?

As for the puffs, yes those are from compressed air. Just like the puffs you see for example here: www.youtube.com...


I know NIST agrees tower 7 was a bottom up collapse so I don't see why you are arguing..
They state the interior collapsed from the bottom leaving the exterior walls intact..
The exterior walls were dragged in later..

That's why it appears the top collapsed first...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Fasinating, however the dust is a different color. Also That does not explain the dust several floors below the point where the collapse has progressed. also in that video you can see the collapse slow down significantly eacht time it hits a floor that has been demolished. Also the dust is caused by one floor crashing into the other and not by a plume of dust over the floor, as seen in videos of the wtc collapse. Also the floor that crashes into the floor beneath it does not turn into dust in midair. If anything this shows the many discrepancies between a demolition or a collapse where only part of the structure is removed by explosives or fails due to stress and the WTC tower, where the structure is first weakened by nanothermite and then blown up after it has been stuffed like a turkey with explosives before.

Also you do realize you showed me a video of a controlled demolition to make your point that it wasnt a controlled demolition? So basically at this point we agree it was a controlled demolition, we just do not quite agree on the details, si? To achieve what we see in the video all the trusses must be taken out at the same time, that does not happen by chance. At least I am unaware of a high rise steelframe building that collapsed in such a fashion, or collapsed period, but maybe you can point one out hmmm?

Not to mention all those buildings are prepped before the actual demoltion.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Dust color? Explosions change the color of concrete? Again all your points have logical explanations. The WTC had a different structure from any of those building. So yes, the collapse is also different. Also, the WTC was not stripped empty, and the windows were not removed.

So what about this expert of yours?

As for your suggestion that there are similarities between a controlled demolition and the WTC collapse, of course there are, they are both collapses. There are also distinct differences.
edit on 20-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


What expert? I didnt say anything about an expert. I have the impression you are desperately looking for something to nail me for, annything. Are you here to find out what really happened, or are you just looking to "win"?

What about the point that you made your point by showing us clips of a controlled demolition? What about that there was no floor pancaking into the other, but a floor turning into dust one by one. What about that the towers came down a couple of seconds slower than freefall speed, when according to the videos you produced it should have taken a lot longer? What about that you did not show any video that remotely resembles the rench demolition technique applied on the WTC towers? Also if it wasnt a controlled demolition, what did they use the Nanothermite for?

I am glad we agree it was a controlled demolition. But while you think the rench demolition technique was used, I think an excessive ammount of explosives was involved and that the collapse was not gravity driven.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Your question make less and less sense to me. Didn't you read my last post where I wrote that different structure an no stripping results in a different collapse? I used the video to show you puffs, I never claimed the WTC collapse is exactly similar to those in the video

Its also tiring you keep editing about all your post either changing its contents entirely or add whole new paragraphs.
edit on 20-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Yes the collapse due to chance progresses even faster than in those clips of a controlled demolition. How do you explain the trusses to fail at the same time due to damage and fire for the pancaking effect to initiate? And why dont we see floors crashing into each other in this "gravity driven collapse", but floors turning into dust one by one?

I say too they are not the same, because the WTC tower was stuffed with explosives like a Turkey.

You say they are not the same because...

Sorry you find this tiering. I did not realize we are doing battle here. I assumed we are both looking for the truth, but I am getting the impression you are not a truther.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

What expert? I didnt say anything about an expert.


This one:


Originally posted by Cassius666
That experts dont see what I see is a lie. In fact I talked to somebody educated on the subject and he pointed out to me what I reproduced to you.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


What does you editing you posts has to do with a battle or truth? It just makes the communication unpleasant.

I don't understand your question and I think they are different because they have a different structure.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Yes I talked to a professor from my local unviersity who teaches architecture and a friend of mine did the same in Aachen with an engineer. Dont ask me what he specialized in though. What about it? I suggest you get in touch with an expert yourself if you want good answers. If you are in America you could do so at your local university or find out if any of those thousand engineers at AE911truth.org is avaiable and what he has to say and let us all know.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join