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.

 

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 14
137
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Barbaricfellow
 


7 WTC is not your "typical" building and expecting it to behave like every other building is naive. 7 WTC is of cantilever design as it was built over another structure. If I recall correctly this lead to a single column (Column 79) being the point of failure. Once it failed a good portion of support was removed and the appearance of all support being removed at once would occur.

There is zero evidence for the use of explosives to demolish the building. There were no loud series of explosions before the building began to collapse.

Seeing how A&E got it so wrong leads to another point. Because you have the title or word Architect or Engineer in your job name does not mean you are qualified to analyze this specific incident. This incident requires the skill of a qualified Structural Engineer which A&E apparently does not have.

Chris Mohr has a good series of Youtube videos explaining why Richard Gage is wrong.

This is off topic to your post but relevant to this thread. A&E is being held up as an authoritative source. It is reasonable to question their qualifications and their significance to the big picture. The 1600+ sounds like a big number but when compared to the professional engineering pool globally it is about 0.1%. After several years of effort, and you can only count less than 1% on your side, that is an epic failure. It is obvious that their arguments are not compelling and easy to ignore as another bunch of crackpots pushing a conspiracy to sell DVDs, T Shirts and other trinkets to support themselves.

P.S. My grammar sucks.

P.S.S My point is A&E is wrong and continues to be wrong and is not a good source for 9/11 engineering expertise.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 



Don't forget, on BBC it's collapse was announced, what, 5 or 6 minutes before it even occurred? Oops! Also, WTC 6 was in between WTC 7 and WTC 1/2, and even it too did not fully collapse. WTC 7 was intentionally demolished in my opinion, tell me I'm wrong and you'd be wasting your breath.


The BBC was quoting an incorrect report (from Reuters, which is term was referring a local report) that WTC 7
had collapsed

The FDNY announced several hours earlier that were establishing a collapse zone around WTC 7 in anticipation
of it falling

I had the luxury of actually listening to a presentation by the incident commander that day who explained
what was going on - not some lunatic on the internet spouting nonsense.....



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
1,500 structural engineers, demolition experts, and fire science engineers with TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND HOURS of combined experience believe it was done with explosives.... and people still aren't capable of accepting the truth... how sad for them to hold on so tightly (or be paid enough to sacrifice their own moral integrity).




Hundreds of thounsands with MILLIONS of hours of combined experience dont seem to share the same view it seems or will you just keep ignoring that FACT!



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by Barbaricfellow
 


Because you have the title or word Architect or Engineer in your job name does not mean you are qualified to analyze this specific incident. This incident requires the skill of a qualified Structural Engineer which A&E apparently does not have.

Chris Mohr has a good series of Youtube videos explaining why Richard Gage is wrong.

The 1600+ sounds like a big number but when compared to the professional engineering pool globally it is about 0.1%. After several years of effort, and you can only count less than 1% on your side, that is an epic failure. It is obvious that their arguments are not compelling and easy to ignore as another bunch of crackpots pushing a conspiracy to sell DVDs, T Shirts and other trinkets to support themselves.


It seems odd that a straightforward gravitational collapse brought on by fire should need very special analysis. There are many scenes following earthquakes, industrial accidents etc. that have been analysed to garner useful knowledge. I wonder how tempting it would be for a qualified individual to privately publish their own analysis of the event. If their findings were acceptable to the corrupt military/industrial complex they would be rewarded with smiles and handshakes. But if an independent analysis turned up an unfavourable judgement, well, would you want to be in their shoes?

Of course Richard Gage is wrong. He's isn't an investigator, he's a star, a frontman. He's a noble and apparently fearless warrior, a wordsmith and a sacred clown. But his grasp of technical details isn't the best.

What percentage of relevant professionals have looked at the NIST presentations? How many of them have got as far as reading the FAQs?

How many of them are aware of this, "13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses."

We don't have to be stupid about this. We know this means the official analysis of the 'collapse' of the two iconic towers didn't analyse the 'collapse'. How many of those busy professionals are aware of this? When they become aware of it how are they going to view the building 7 presentation?

I can't call it an investigation, to investigate is to 'carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.'

When it comes to the T shirts I wholeheartedly agree with you.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
7 WTC is not your "typical" building and expecting it to behave like every other building is naive. 7 WTC is of cantilever design as it was built over another structure. If I recall correctly this lead to a single column (Column 79) being the point of failure. Once it failed a good portion of support was removed and the appearance of all support being removed at once would occur.

It is absolutely remarkable how some people can sleep at night, or live during the day with the type of logic that is shown by some people. If you are going to imply that the failure of one single column is going to bring an entire steel-structured highrise down, you might want to do a little more research into building construction, or especially how WTC 7 was constructed.

WTC 7 was constructed with enough redundancy that entire floors could be removed without affecting the structural integrity of the building. Salomon Brothers had that need. Most of three floors were removed. Then, more than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - was installed to support Salomon's equipment.

WTC 7 was essentially a building within a building. In other words, a double building with more support than an average steel-structured highrise.

Steel-structured highrises have never globally collapsed due to fire, and it's highly unlikely that they ever will. Steel-structured highrises are constructed far stronger than the "official conspiracy theory" proponents would have us believe.



Originally posted by huh2142
There is zero evidence for the use of explosives to demolish the building.

Just the way it collapsed alone indicates the use of explosives. All support columns have to be severed at the exact same time for a building to collapse straight down:





Originally posted by huh2142
There were no loud series of explosions before the building began to collapse.

Really? Haven't seen any of the collapse videos by NIST then, hmm? Then there's NYPD officer Craig Bartmer that talks about the booms from the explosions before/during collapse.



Originally posted by huh2142
This incident requires the skill of a qualified Structural Engineer which A&E apparently does not have.

I can't tell if this statement is deliberately false, or due to your lack of research. AE911T has many structural engineers.



Originally posted by huh2142
The 1600+ sounds like a big number but when compared to the professional engineering pool globally it is about 0.1%.

You cannot count somebody that has not voted, then claim that they have voted. It doesn't matter how many architects or engineers there are in the entire known universe. Out of all the architects and engineers that have gone public one way or another, there are far more that support AE911T, than support the official conspiracy theory.



Originally posted by huh2142
P.S.S My point is A&E is wrong and continues to be wrong and is not a good source for 9/11 engineering expertise.

Thank you for your opinion.







edit on 15-1-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Hundreds of thounsands with MILLIONS of hours of combined experience dont seem to share the same view it seems or will you just keep ignoring that FACT!


How many of them have taken a look at the NIST presentations and compared them with the publicly available evidence?

Whatever opinion they have, it's their right to hold that opinion. When judging the merit of their opinion it is imperative to understand the degree of personal knowledge that backs their personal opinion.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
One of the most blatant clues here is the uber-quick removal of the steel beams. Why were they so hurriedly shipped off to China to be recycled?

Come on think, this is clearly getting rid of valuable evidence. Those beams should have been studied and analyzed to death. Because if fire was responsible for the collapse, they would want to finds out how and why it happened.

The data would have been highly valuable from a scientific and architectural point of view. The fact it was shipped off so quickly without any analysis is akin to hosing down a murder scene before forensics arrive.

The official story is absurd.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeMoveUnseen
One of the most blatant clues here is the uber-quick removal of the steel beams. Why were they so hurriedly shipped off to China to be recycled?

Come on think, this is clearly getting rid of valuable evidence. Those beams should have been studied and analyzed to death. Because if fire was responsible for the collapse, they would want to finds out how and why it happened.

The data would have been highly valuable from a scientific and architectural point of view. The fact it was shipped off so quickly without any analysis is akin to hosing down a murder scene before forensics arrive.

The official story is absurd.


I guess you missed the engineering report that made building design recommendation based on the NIST engineering reports of the WTC towers.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by Barbaricfellow
 

DELETED my post to allow more words




It seems odd that a straightforward gravitational collapse brought on by fire should need very special analysis. There are many scenes following earthquakes, industrial accidents etc. that have been analysed to garner useful knowledge. I wonder how tempting it would be for a qualified individual to privately publish their own analysis of the event. If their findings were acceptable to the corrupt military/industrial complex they would be rewarded with smiles and handshakes. But if an independent analysis turned up an unfavourable judgement, well, would you want to be in their shoes?


I see no issues with an independent body conducting their own investigation. However, I don't know if they could get access to the data they need. Also any analysis will probably require significant manpower, money and time. There is no doubt in my mind that if an independent body came up with different results that they would be heated discussion but no one would fear for their lives.


Of course Richard Gage is wrong. He's isn't an investigator, he's a star, a frontman. He's a noble and apparently fearless warrior, a wordsmith and a sacred clown. But his grasp of technical details isn't the best.


One of the keys t a successful organization is having a front man that can put forth a compelling reason to "buy the product." For example, in the circus you have the ring master. He is responsible for getting people excited about the following acts and keeping interest high as the acts change out. Richard doesn't need to grasp the technical details, however he has to be able to present them in a compelling manner to move people to his side. A&E has no compelling arguments.


How many of them are aware of this, "13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses."


What is your abjection to this statement? It is a true statement.


We don't have to be stupid about this. We know this means the official analysis of the 'collapse' of the two iconic towers didn't analyse the 'collapse'. How many of those busy professionals are aware of this? When they become aware of it how are they going to view the building 7 presentation?


NIST analyze the initiation phase since it was of most interest. If initiation can be prevented or minimized then the collapse may halt or be minimal which is a good objective for an organization responsible for establishing standards. Since the activity after initiation is so chaotic and unpredictable, spending millions of man hours and dollars is a waste of time. It is far more important to design building that don't fall down then it is to understand the minutiae of the fall.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Since both a natural collapse and a controlled demotion (using explosives) use gravity their appearance will be similar. The tells of a explosive controlled demolition are loud booms and flashes before the collapse of the building and all the controlled demolition debris left after the collapse. Where is the det cord, the beams marked with explosive residue? Also the explosive pressure from the blast would have broken windows and did other damage. None of that was found/noticed.

In the gif you used to compare 7WTC to a controlled demo you left out the portion where the penthouses collapsed at the beginning. Were both videos in sync? It looks like clever editing to make both videos look the same even though they were not.

Also your use of quote mining to make me look bad is a tactic of a charlatan. You don't have facts to back up your position so you attack the poster.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142

Since the activity after initiation is so chaotic and unpredictable, spending millions of man hours and dollars is a waste of time.


This, readers, is the most important point of all.

The creators of the 'official story' and it's supporters consider analysing the 'collapse' to be a waste of time.

Always remember this.

If some ignorant individual tells you it's all been investigated and thousands upon thousands of professionals are satisfied with that investigation let them know. It hasn't been investigated because that would be a "..waste of time."

If these thousands of professionals are satisfied with an investigation that only exists in their imaginations how reliable is their opinion?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 




The FOIA request to NIST by a registered structural engineer for calculations and analysis substantiating the walk-off failures of the horizontal gerders from their seats at columns 79 and 81 was denied by NIST, on the basis that releasing this data “might jeaporadize public safety”.


More likely not being released because the testing was never done OR the results were the complete opposite..... Apparently "WE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" !



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



Originally posted by Thermo Klein
1,500 structural engineers, demolition experts, and fire science engineers with TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND HOURS of combined experience believe it was done with explosives.... and people still aren't capable of accepting the truth... how sad for them to hold on so tightly (or be paid enough to sacrifice their own moral integrity).



The figures you list 25000 hours and 1500 professionals works out to 16 hours apiece! that's pretty thin!

Anyway, A&E 911truth petition signers DO NOT necessarily believe that explosives were used. The petition calls for a further investigation and THAT IS ALL.

the full petition can be read here



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
The tells of a explosive controlled demolition are loud booms and flashes before the collapse of the building and all the controlled demolition debris left after the collapse.

All of the signs of controlled demolition have been fulfilled in the form of isolated ejections, near free-fall collapse, timed/synchronous booms, and flashes. When one does actual research, one finds these facts.



Originally posted by huh2142
Where is the det cord

We have no idea what types of explosives were used or how they were wired. They could've been wireless for all we know.



Originally posted by huh2142
Also the explosive pressure from the blast would have broken windows and did other damage. None of that was found/noticed.

It's only "not found/noticed" to those who do no real research and instead are armchair debunkers. Windows in most buildings surrounding ground zero were blown out. As far as the pressure change, at least one witness reported it. You can listen to his story in my video below. He is the first witness presented in my video:





Originally posted by huh2142
In the gif you used to compare 7WTC to a controlled demo you left out the portion where the penthouses collapsed at the beginning.

A portion of the building falling off isn't a total building collapse. The total collapse started at the beginning of that .gif.



Originally posted by huh2142
Also your use of quote mining to make me look bad is a tactic of a charlatan.

You make yourself look bad by signing up here to strictly do "9/11 debunking" and not joining in conversations anywhere else on the site. That is a tell-tale sign of an agenda.



Originally posted by huh2142
You don't have facts to back up your position so you attack the poster.

I always back everything up that I post. You may want to check my post history. I'll debate you about anything 9/11 any time.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Anyway, A&E 911truth petition signers DO NOT necessarily believe that explosives were used. The petition calls for a further investigation and THAT IS ALL.

People that sign the petition will agree with the evidence presented by AE911T and sign the petition asking for a new investigation. I can tell you that no matter how strongly I would like to see a new investigation, I wouldn't sign a petition on a site the proposed holograms or space beam weapons as the reason the towers fell. I would have to agree with what is being presented before signing anything.

I would bet that if you contacted all of the signatories, 99.99% of them would agree with AE911T's evidence and is the reason they signed the petition in the first place. The evidence is the reason why people go to AE911T and sign their petition.

Seems that someone is grasping for straws at this point.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Sek82
 



Don't forget, on BBC it's collapse was announced, what, 5 or 6 minutes before it even occurred? Oops! Also, WTC 6 was in between WTC 7 and WTC 1/2, and even it too did not fully collapse. WTC 7 was intentionally demolished in my opinion, tell me I'm wrong and you'd be wasting your breath.


The BBC was quoting an incorrect report (from Reuters, which is term was referring a local report) that WTC 7
had collapsed

The FDNY announced several hours earlier that were establishing a collapse zone around WTC 7 in anticipation
of it falling

I had the luxury of actually listening to a presentation by the incident commander that day who explained
what was going on - not some lunatic on the internet spouting nonsense.....





you were saying... sounds like you grouped yourself into the lunatic internet nonsense.

just because you say you were there listening to a fire chief does NOT make you an expert on the situation.

did you happen to ask the chief who ordered all the firefighters out of bldg 7 and why? NO civil engineer or experienced firefighter thought that building was going to come down... in the history of skyscrapers FIRE has NEVER brought down the internal steel structure... were talking about Steel not some stick built wood frame home.
the fire dept. was told to evacuate because it was known by some that the bldg would be pulled.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 



did you happen to ask the chief who ordered all the firefighters out of bldg 7 and why? NO civil engineer or experienced firefighter thought that building was going to come down... in the history of skyscrapers FIRE has NEVER brought down the internal steel structure... were talking about Steel not some stick built wood frame home.


First the FDNY pulled their men out of the building just after noon - 5 hours begore it collapsed


Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” [Firehouse Magazine, 9/9/2002]

Captain Chris Boyle will recall, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.”


Capt Chris Boyle


But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
.


WTC 7 was abandoned because of the severe structural damage and fact there was no water to fight the fires
The collapse of WTC towers had damaged the mains

FDNY was not about to risk their men in building with no water to fight fires - too easy to get cut off and trapped

Two - FDNY collapse unit positioned surveyor transit on bulge in corner of building. The fact that building was
bulging told them of structural damage . Its what taught to every Firefighter - how to spot signs that building
is unstable

By 2:30PM could tell from transit that WTC 7 was "moving" - building was beginning to shift


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also 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.

According to numerous rescue and recovery workers, the area around WTC Building 7 is evacuated at this time. [Kansas City Star, 3/28/2004]

For example: Emergency medical technician Joseph Fortis says, “They pulled us all back at the time, almost about an hour before it, because they were sure—they knew it was going to come down, but they weren’t sure.” [City of New York, 11/9/2001]

Firefighter Edward Kennedy says, ” I remember [Chief Visconti] screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse.” [City of New York, 1/17/2002]

Firefighter Vincent Massa: “They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.” [City of New York, 12/4/2001]

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: “[B]uilding seven was in eminent collapse. They blew the horns. They said everyone clear the area until we got that last civilian out.” [City of New York, 12/30/2001]

Battalion Fire Chief John Norman: “I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

Several New York Fire Department chief officers, who have surveyed Building 7, have apparently determined it is in danger of collapsing. [Fire Engineering, 9/2002]

For example, Fire Chief Daniel Nigro explains their decision-making process, saying, “A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone.” [Fire Engineering, 9/2002]



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL

the fire dept. was told to evacuate because it was known by some that the bldg would be pulled.


You only need one additional piece of evidence to support this nonsense. Produce even one legitimate Firefighter not afflicted with dementia who supports this bull flop nonsense...



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Since both a natural collapse and a controlled demotion (using explosives) use gravity their appearance will be similar. The tells of a explosive controlled demolition are loud booms and flashes before the collapse of the building and all the controlled demolition debris left after the collapse.



you should REALLY just watch the video.... you have no idea how badly you're embarrassing yourself with your incorrect assumptions.

A significant portion of the OP video discusses EXACTLY what you're talking about except they use facts and their cummulative 25,000 YEARS of demolition, engineering, and fire science experience.

One quick example?
In a typical building accidental collapse when the upper section collapses upon the lower floors the upper section is slowed because the structure was specifically built to withstand downward pressure.
In the Twin Towers and Building 7 they fell at free fall speeds meaning "something" removed the resistance as the upper section fell.
They spend a good 15 minutes discussing this (experts with PhDs and 20 years experience, not some dude on the internet)

... just watch the video and save yourself and all of us wasted comments.



edit on 15-1-2012 by Thermo Klein because: typo and clarification



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This has got to be one of the best 9/11 threads I have ever seen, it basically debunks the official story.




top topics



 
137
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join