Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 8
137
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by ExistanceIsResistance
no, fuel jet cannot melt steel, or even dissemble the ones WTC was stabilized by.

No it can't BUT (if you read the physics) it can soften the steel making it unable support the loads it was designed for.


Here you go.








posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
A very well presented thread OP...

It is not just in the USA that what took place on 9/11 causes debate. Here in the UK, the OS of 'terrorists' hijacking planes and causing the collapse of 3 steel-structured buildings was widely accepted and people I know and love 'prepared for war'...

I have lost friends and family to the 'war' that resulted from what took place on 9/11 and still know people who flatly refuse to even contemplate that the OS is not true...

What I have read on this thread only confirms, for me, that without a NEW and IMPARTIAL investigation into the events of 9/11, this subject will remain divisive. That said, no investigation will bring back the brave people who died that day nor will it bring back any of my friends.

People who have attacked the call on this thread for a NEW investigation, are for me, the worst kind of cowards and traitors to the human race... You know who you are people... you betray those brave people who died that day. You betray the poor souls who were conned into fighting a 'war' on terror. You betray the brave families who have lost loved ones and cannot accept the OS as there are simply too many 'holes' in the story. You betray future generations who will question why the OS does not take into consideration scientific evidence. Worst of all, you betray yourselves through your own cowardice... IMO (and it would seem 1000's, if not MILLIONS of people worldwide) without a NEW investigation conducted by an OPEN and CREDIBLE organisation, the questions regarding what really took place will not go away...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And then there are the (3.) ejections of dust/debris:




The towers exhibited all four signs of controlled demolition as outlined above. But, I'm going to add a fifth sign: smoke coming off the ends of columns due to just being severed with explosives.

You are having a laugh! Come on. How come all the footage I look at on Youtube NOT ONE shows any debris being ejected as shown in the above still ? How come , on that right hand still, the debris just happens to be ejected at the most easily photoshopped CORNER against a plain background. How come the side of the building (with the windows and weakest area ie glass) shows NO sign of ejected debris? How come the corner facing us (far harder to photoshop) has no debris being ejected?

NB the lower the resolution the easier to edit hence why I have concentrated on the right hand still. Anyone with photoshop or gimp(me) can create the left hand effect!

Sorry but that is a doctored image (and no doubt the video). You have been conned.
edit on 14/1/12 by malcr because: spelling



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Just their physical size caused immense damage to the buildings

Only to the exterior columns that were connected by welds and bolts. The core columns were much larger, and braced horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. But NIST's calculations (which are close, in my opinion) imply that the damage was not "immense", catastrophic, or even severe, for that matter.

So right now, you're just using your opinion.



Originally posted by ProudBird
the explosions from the fuel they contained contributed to more damage.

That would be false also, because if the fuel explosions were significant enough to cause more damage to steel, we would see floors and floors of blown windows above and below the impact zones on all sides of the towers, and we don't see that.



Originally posted by ProudBird
What the explosives in a controlled demo can do is cause weaknesses in the structure at critical points, to ensure the direction of collapse.

You're only half correct. Some controlled demolitions use only one type of explosive to bring a building down. Some buildings they use two different types of explosives. The WTC used two different types of explosives like many other demolitions use. Most explosives sever the actual columns. Severing columns is taking resistance away.



Originally posted by ProudBird
after the fatal wound was inflicted, the mas above could not be supported

Considering that 85% of the structure was still intact in the impact zones, that's a pretty bold statement to make, however incorrect it may be.



Originally posted by ProudBird
Fire doesn't "melt" steel, but it DOES weaken it,

No, office fires, nor kerosene cannot melt steel, however there was molten steel observed at ground zero. This is indicative of likely incendiaries being used.



Originally posted by ProudBird
"Progressive collapse" refers to the sequential failure after failure after failure, all in a very fast succession, and all driven by the force of gravity.

While this is true, it cannot be applied to steel-structured highrises because not only is there no steel-structured highrise that has progressively collapsed in history, it is highly unlikely that any steel-structured highrise can experience a progressive collapse.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Where are your "timed/synchronous booms" ? All I hear is the growing rumble .

There are plenty of witnesses to the timed/synchronous booms. Just because microphones might not have picked up the sounds, doesn't mean that that many witnesses are mistaken or lying.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
“Even thousands of real experts?” If they are not hiding behind an internet name as you say, you should be able to list them. In your world, is David Ray Griffin a “real expert” in something other than the power of prayer?

Using the word "expert" is your choice, but he is very knowledgeable and educated.



Originally posted by pteridine
You say that if something takes 1.5 times as long it is very close. If I run the 100 meter dash in 15 seconds, I should be very close to a world record 9.25 seconds and Usain Bolt should worry about his records? Not even close.

Floors collapsing at .138 seconds per floor is a phenomenal speed and is indicative of the absence of resistance.

Considering that free-fall is about 9 seconds, the actual collapses were around 15 seconds, and at half a second per floor would be 55 seconds, yes, the collapses were near free-fall.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by ExistanceIsResistance
no, fuel jet cannot melt steel, or even dissemble the ones WTC was stabilized by.

No it can't BUT (if you read the physics) it can soften the steel making it unable support the loads it was designed for.


But an open air room fire is not going to get hot enough, in an hour, to be able to transfer enough heat to the steel to cause it to heat up to anything even close to that temperature.


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...


Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

www.doctorfire.com...

Not only that but a small amount of steel failing is not going to cause the rest of the steel fail. Those steel components were able to hold multiple times their own weight. Even IF the whole building lost half it's load bearing capacity it would still not collapse.


The factor of safety also known as Safety Factor, is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical design capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could be any one of a number of the components of the design process including calculations, material strengths, duty, manufacture quality. The value of the safety factor is related to the lack of confidence in the design process. The simplest interpretation of the Factor of Safety is

FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component

If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...

www.roymech.co.uk...

Even if the whole building had a FoS of only 2 (it would be much higher), it means it could hold twice it's own weight. A 50% loss of load handling capacity of any of the steel would not cause complete collapse. We know the majority of the steel was not effected by heat, even at the impact point of the planes the fires had cooled enough for people to stand. If the fire was not even burning at the impact points, how did the trusses heat up enough to cause failure?

Can you even explain how sagging trusses are supposed to able to put a pulling force on the columns they're attached to? There is a very simple explanation as to why they couldn't.

edit on 1/14/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
How come all the footage I look at on Youtube NOT ONE shows any debris being ejected as shown in the above still ?

Either you haven't seen many videos of the collapses, or you're not paying very much attention. Most of the collapse videos show the ejections.



Originally posted by malcr
How come , on that right hand still, the debris just happens to be ejected at the most easily photoshopped CORNER against a plain background.

Actually, those are two separate images, super-imposed onto one another in my attempt to make a smaller image. The two images are from my collage here:





Originally posted by malcr
How come the corner facing us (far harder to photoshop) has no debris being ejected?

Look closely at the above image in the upper-right corner. You can see debris ejected towards the camera as evidenced by the arrow.



Originally posted by malcr
Anyone with photoshop or gimp(me) can create the left hand effect!

Really? Anyone can create the photo on the left?




The above image is actually two apartment towers being demolished. It is a screen-shot of a video on "implosionworld.com" as is stated on the image.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Sorry but that is a doctored image (and no doubt the video). You have been conned.


You must be new. There were certainly ejections, in some cases far below the collapse front which weren't fake and have been known to 9/11 researchers for many years. I have almost the entire 9/11 news archive of that day on disk.

Are you new? And do you know the names of the well known 9/11 video source material collectors?
edit on 14-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
It is time introduce the "Richard Gage" version....



I mean, this is a "part" of "A%E for9/11Truth"????






posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
Where are your "timed/synchronous booms" ? All I hear is the growing rumble .

There are plenty of witnesses to the timed/synchronous booms. Just because microphones might not have picked up the sounds, doesn't mean that that many witnesses are mistaken or lying.




If microphones in the North Tower can pick up human speech but no " timed synchronous booms " from the adjacent South Tower when it collapses then I suggest that is strong evidence that any witness claiming to hear such booms is mistaken.

This is a video medley of Tower collapses :-

www.youtube.com...

Again, where are the timed booms ?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Again, where are the timed booms ?


In the Naudet video, which is why prof. Zdeněk Bažant postulated his sonic boom hypothesis to explain it.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Oops, no, I really don't want to get involved in CD discussions. Had my fair share of that in the past.

Sorry to disturb, carry on.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Oh, so you can't contradict the facts, you have to start the attempts at ridicule based on ignorance.

If you understood physics, you would understand what the point of that demonstration is. I would guess your reaction is not too dissimilar to the ignorant masses, when they were first told the earth is not flat.


'Those who laugh at philosophies they know nothing of Are those who mostly disgust me. And I shall be avenged, through the power of Satan anarchy.' Esoteric LOL



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Alfie1
Again, where are the timed booms ?


In the Naudet video, which is why prof. Zdeněk Bažant postulated his sonic boom hypothesis to explain it.


Can you point me to the clip you have in mind please ?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hey all,

Very first post here on ATS; been a prowler for some time, but saw this thread and had to share some more information that I have recently taken into consideration.

I am not discounting anything, or any of the testimonies/expert opinions of the individuals you have posted, um, Tupac; instead, I am only ask you to use such scrutiny when dealing with the following information.

Consider this first, for just a moment- do we really think that the powers-that-be would mastermind the 9/11 attacks and not work on multiple layers of a coverup? I think it's logical to assume that there is a major psy-op (sp?) happening, even within the "conspiracy" movement, which I quote with tongue-in-cheek.

Anyway! Dr. Judy Wood recently released a book called "where did the towers go?", highlighting the evidence she has collected from that fateful day, and then subsequently theorizing a new explanation- directed free energy, not explosions or thermite, brought the towers down. But, don't take my word for it; review the following website (which is intense!), keep an open heart and mind, and may we all get to the bottom of this:

www.drjudywood.com...

some highlights:

-over a half of a mile of skyscraper was reduced to an extremely, disproportionately small pile of rubble.
-there was a very, very small seismic reading when the towers "fell".
-a "bathtub" retaining wall that sat at the foundation of the towers did NOT break, thus no flooding from the very nearby Hudson River.
-the underground WTC mall survived.
-path trains/tunnels underneath the towers were largely unharmed.
-check out "The Hutchinson Effect," and how his experiments parallel the behavior of objects, metals, etc, from 9/11 (ex, cars were flipped over on their backs, burnt to a crisp... how?)
-what was the significance of hurricane Erin which was sitting not too far off the coast of New England that morning?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Again, where are the timed booms ?


When are you all going to learn it doesn't matter if booms were heard?

The towers must have collapsed from gravity, just because we don't hear the booms? lol.

The physics completely contradict that the towers could completely collapse from gravity, regardless of what your hear, or not.

It's called deduction. If gravity couldn't do it alone, then it stands to reason that another energy must have been involved, regardless of what you hear or see.

You are just simply denying the obvious, to continue in your faith.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well, BoneZ was claiming that there were timed synchronous booms. I haven't found any evidence for that and you seem to be agreeing with me for once.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well, BoneZ was claiming that there were timed synchronous booms. I haven't found any evidence for that and you seem to be agreeing with me for once.


No, I was not agreeing with you, I did not say there were no synchronous booms heard because there was...



What I was pointing out is that either way, it doesn't matter. Not hearing booms does not mean the towers collapses were natural. Seems your ignorance of physics keeps you from realizing this.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Probably the best 9/11 thread ive ever seen! Took me a while to read it, but it sure made me think twice about what happened that day.





top topics
 
137
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join