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.
Originally posted by kidtwist
They were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by kidtwist
They (bodies) were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.
Prove it Truther. Give us a link.
Originally posted by kidtwist
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by kidtwist
They (bodies) were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.
Prove it Truther. Give us a link.
Watch the Barry Jennings uncut video, it's documented by him there!
I take it you've not seen that otherwise you would not be asking the question!?
It's in this thread, posted by member maxella, backtrack a couple of pages and enlighten yourself.
Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.
I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.
Originally posted by kidtwist
Originally posted by Alfie1
You haven't searched very diligently because the Barry Jennings story has been dealt with many times and I personally have made various posts about it.
I have and didn't find any, please do link me up, I'd love to know what you wrote in them.
It is evident that you don't have much of a grasp of the story yourself because there was never any question of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when Barry Jennings arrived.
This remark makes no sense at all, you are just repeating what I said, so does that mean you have no grasp either? I think you know full well I have a very good grasp on this subject.
So as I stated, if the bodies were there upon Barry's arrival, do you care to tell me why they were dead? This was before any towers collapsed, and before any fires were started in WTC7? There was no reason for dead bodies at that stage!
The basic facts are that Barry Jennings went up to the OEM on the 23rd floor in an elevator with Michael Hess. They found the place deserted and in a phone call Barry was advised to get out. When they came to leave the elevator wouldn't function. This places the time as after 09.59 because the power was cut off at that time when the South Tower fell.
After scouting around, Michael Hess finds the stairs and they set off down. Their descent is prevented at 10.28 when debris from the collapsing North Tower rains down on WTC 7 and the stairwell is blocked.
They are rescued later and Barry gave an account of the firefightrers telling him not to look down and he had an impression of stepping over bodies in the lobby. Michael Hess has never referred to bodies and Barry later retracted his account emphasising he never saw any bodies.
So you are contradicting yourself, one minute you say bodies upon arrival, then you mould the story so the bodies occurred later. They were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.
Where are you getting these fictitious times from? Barry went in soon after the 'plane' impact, he clearly states he saw the towers were still standing before explosions went off, and he clearly states as firemen came to rescue him later, they ran off because the first tower collapsed!
You are making stuff up, Barry's account has been repeated on video a few times and on radio a few times, each time it's accurate, each time it's the same, he never retracts anything. Their is a BBC video that is heavily cut, but the uncut version reveals everything.
This is just a brief outline because you will find it dealt with in detail via search.
Oh, I have done plenty of research into Barry Jennings, don't worry about my knowledge on his account, and the very fact you are making stuff up shows you've either not done any homework yourself, or your trying to distort the real facts for some other reason? Barry Jennings knows what Barry Jennings saw, no one in the world can refute that.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.
I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.
How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?
Originally posted by ANOK
They are not ignored, your exaggerated opinion of what they meant is.
What they found, and what they said, has nothing to do with WTC 7 completely collapsing into its footprint, which is impossible from fire and asymmetrical damage.
Will this ever sink in or will you continue with your strawman?
Originally posted by Alfie1
Originally posted by maxella1
I don't have to assume anything, they are saying it in plain English.
Well that's fine. It's just that some might have thought you were claiming that the only construction that could be put on that is that they were referring to explosives ; which of course doesn't follow.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by plube
as the structure uses energy in the destruction of the lower and upper blocks simultaneously the collapse would fail to progress.....
I snipped most of your post to focus on this issue. This is not what physics dictates. Energy does not get 'used up'. It can be converted in terms of destruction, but there seems to be a critical misunderstanding here.
Where do you think Bazant introduces additional energy? Nothing in his paper is added other than the gravitational potential of the floors. Whether they're broken into rubble or fully intact, their momentum remains the same.
Originally posted by ANOK
Energy is converted. Kinetic energy is converted to other energy such as heat, sound, forces needed for deformation etc. during the impacts.
When the Ke is converted to other energy it is gone, used up,
unless another energy acts on the system to increase the Ke, i.e. explosives.
If Ke is being lost then the collapse would slow down, as the resistance would be more than the energy available to overcome it.
Do you agree with this statement, 'by it's very design a building must be have more resistance in its structure than energy available to overcome that resistance'?
If you do, as you should, then where is that extra energy coming from? It's not the plane impacts or the fire because neither had an effect on the collapse itself, you can argue that they initiated the collapse, but initiation and the actual collapse were two different events. NIST chose to act as if the initiation was all that mattered and complete collapse was inevitable, they were challenged in this and thus we got Bazant's whitewash.
As already pointed out Bazants hypothesis is nonsense. 15 floors cannot crush 95 floors and stay in one piece, crushing itself later. Newtons laws of motion contradict that claim. Equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum is all you need to know to understand.
Originally posted by exponent
Did they find fire? Did they find the building was moving? Did they find actual damage?
If you can answer those honestly, then sure I have no problem with what you're saying, but I imagine you deny at least one of the above?
That's not what a strawman is, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
I've seen eyewitness accounts of explosions sure, but that's not exactly proof of explosives, especially when some of the 'explosions' people quote are bodies hitting the floor, or the collapse itself. I've never seen a video where it's clear there's actual explosions going on though. Feel free to link one!
I have no intention of insulting anyone with the terms I use, just trying to pick something that adequately describes whoever I am talking about.
I don't even think that's accurate. Even on ATS, the proportion believing in a demolition conspiracy theory is barely above 50%:
What is supposed to have caused them.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.
I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.
How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?
Surely you can't believe that the people responsible for the lives of the people on that site would be lying about this? I mean we even have photos of the damage. It seems crazy to me that you'd put so much faith in one account, but none whatsoever in another.
I obviously didn't make myself clear. I am not aware of anyone, Barry included, claiming that there were bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 when he arrived. If you think you can substantiate it please provide a source
Originally posted by exponent
When it's used in breaking elements and heating, sure, that energy is gone for use in the next collision.
I think you mean 'eg'. Breaking the next floor down from its supports would also increase the KE.
Agreed, what is the measured rate of acceleration? From that we can work out the force applied upwards.
No this is nonsense. To support a static load, a building must exert a force equivalent to its weight (its dead load). Real buildings also have live load. The actual mass can vary greatly thanks to its geometry, it has no correlation to the energy available for fracturing columns. This can be made artificially low in any example building by not bracing the structure.
The extra energy comes from the fall between breaking the next foor and the impact with the floor after that. That 12 feet of space allows the rubble to be accelerated under gravity. Gravitational Potential Energy.
Please show the equations you use to prove this claim. Please do not call people 'shills'.
According to Newton's third law, for every action force there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Forces always come in pairs - known as "action-reaction force pairs."
Except if you would have some truly new important points to raise in regard to what you call a "documentary", please take me out of your mailing list. I do not have time to waste. I have more serious projects to work on than the WTC, which has merely been a hobby for me.
-Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D.
Originally posted by plube
LET m=0.
When it's used in breaking elements and heating, sure, that energy is gone for use in the next collision.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by kidtwist
NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer, First Responder, clearly states that damage to WTC7 was exaggerated, he heard no creaking, and a series of multiple explosions from WTC7, and then WTC7 came down.
I think this guy has more credibility than anyone in this thread that seems to deny what really happened.
How come it's ok to post Craig Bartmer, but when people post the firefighters that actually went around WTC7 and checked whether it was moving (and found that it was) are they ignored?
Surely you can't believe that the people responsible for the lives of the people on that site would be lying about this? I mean we even have photos of the damage. It seems crazy to me that you'd put so much faith in one account, but none whatsoever in another.