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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Originally posted by huh2142
There is zero evidence for the use of explosives to demolish the building.
Originally posted by huh2142
There were no loud series of explosions before the building began to collapse.
Originally posted by huh2142
This incident requires the skill of a qualified Structural Engineer which A&E apparently does not have.
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%.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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”.
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).
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.
Originally posted by huh2142
Where is the det cord
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.
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.
Originally posted by huh2142
Also your use of quote mining to make me look bad is a tactic of a charlatan.
Originally posted by huh2142
You don't have facts to back up your position so you attack the poster.
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.
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.....
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.
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.”
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.
.
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]
Originally posted by -W1LL
the fire dept. was told to evacuate because it was known by some that the bldg would be pulled.
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.