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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 28
46
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes. I don't know. Yes.

It's refreshing to hear someone admit that WTC7 was damaged and on fire! What sort of evidence would you like to believe that they saw building movement.


But none of those events can lead to a building completely collapsing into its footprint, no matter how you change the way you frame those points.

So you have decided that it is in fact impossible, and therefore have not investigated it further? Simply saying that something is impossible doesn't make it so.


Yes it is. You are making an argument that you keep claiming is being ignored. That is a fallacy, and a misrepresentation of our position. We are not ignoring what the firefighters said, we are ignoring your interpenetration of the what they said, and the events in general. Maybe it's not a strawman, but it's something.

Well I'm not going to try and play the intellectual big man here and come up with some fancy list to correct you. It's not that I think you're ignoring what firefighters say, I think you're listening very intently, but only to the ones that support you. People literally talked directly about jet fuel, but any first person evidence is dismissed despite a distinct smell and consistent accounts of behaviour. Yet the second an eyewitness mentions an explosion we are apparently to take this as gospel that some massive (but unspecified) controlled demolition conspiracy was in the works.

That's genuinely how I see it, whether you can appreciate it or not.


So where does the Ke increase again to continue crushing floors?

The increase in energy comes from the descent. Inherently an object descending by h metres loses GPE mgh. There was a 12 floor gap between storeys where little to no resistance would be felt (as most of it was air). This is where the energy comes from.


No, e.g. means 'for example', i.e. mean 'that is'. Your attempt to question my intellect fails.

I'm not questioning your intellect, there's no need to be so defensive. My point was that explosives are not the only (nor a particularly good) answer. Explosives are never used to increase the momentum of a falling object in that manner, they're used to cut.


Well not much for something only dropping about 10 feet. But you also need to know what a floors assembly weighs, how much force the connections could withstand, what the FoS was. Do you have that information?

Sure, it's in the NIST report. Bazant et al bias it towards being as strong as possible in their papers so nobody would complain if you just used their figures, but there's quite a few other analyses out there.


So you're saying a building doesn't have more resistance to collapse than it has energy to collapse itself?

Have you ever heard of FoS?

I'm saying that 'resistance to collapse' is a measure of the total load the columns can support, 'energy to collapse' is a measure of the difficulty of breaking the support of the column. The two are obviously connected but they do not correlate exactly. A moment frame is a perfect example. I can build a building which can support immense gravity loads, but as the support would only work in one axis, the slightest sideways force would utterly destroy it.

You can think of it yourself intuitively in 2d. Build a square out of 4 strips of metal, held together by a single bolt at each corner. If you were to perfectly align this square it could hold quite a bit of weight, but the slightest push on the side and it becomes a parallelogram, with no inherent strength whatsoever.

The situation with buildings is obviously slightly more complex than that, but this is the reason for specific 'subsystems' like moment frames. It allows less steel to be used but the building to be reinforced in the axes needed for its design.


But once again the impacts of floors reduces the Ke, it cannot be increased against resistance. Once resistance is met the Ke is not going to increase, but continually decrease. Ke might increase a small amount but not to same extent as before it hit resistance, Ke would be decreased with every impact.

This is in principle correct, except you forget that we're talking about a sequence of floors here with a gap between them. A column or a floor will not provide resistance over 12 feet, it provides it over less than a foot. After that either the steel has fractured or the supports have been sheared away. The rubble and what remains of the floor then falls to the next. The question is: what is the energy balance in these collisions?


I don't need equations to prove this, simple physics is enough. Where are your equations? Don't tell me what to do.

You're the one that made a claim, and if the question really is that simple then you can show a simple equation to prove it.

Running out of characters, thanks for replying, will make sure I reply to any questions you have.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Barry appears to have made assumptions about the collapse of the Towers based on the actions of firefighters in the street but the evidence indicates that he never saw either collapse.


For one the timeline doesn't lie, and strangely NIST deliberately left out WTC7 and any timelines for that day.

Barry Jennings confirms he entered WTC7 just after 9am, and not long afterwards the 1st explosion he experience that came from underneath him, and he confirms the towers were still standing at this time, not enough time had passed since he entered for the towers to have come down. As I say, the timeline doesn't lie.

He didnt see the collapse, he didnt get out until 1pm, but he knows the timeline, and if he entered just after 9am, and the 1st explosion was soon after that, not enough time had passed for the explosion to be linked with the towers. Simple to understand.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


well here come Way with his one liner snips....the man who has no value to ad to any discussion.

except to call people....nice ....very nice Way.....

I see your a Bazant believer even though he has been proven wrong....here.

Bazants four papers reveiwed

I am not the only one...lol.....this is not truther physics by the way...It is physics......physics does not take sides...it just is.....when you have something to add worth discussing....maybe I will have the respect to talk to you...but till then....you can maybe research physics period.

your statements are snide and unproductive....I have been in here for years....and have learned some valuable things from all sides of the argument....I have learned a great deal on the thermal dynamics of fire and heat propagation through steel....

Your statement about about paint chips being proved was wrong.....I was on the jref forum the day the results were posted.....It was not proven....it was a lousy 1000 dollar analysis on questionable bits...it was not scientific....It was good to see...but it was lacking in great scientific credibility....but by the same token the harriet et al study for the thermite was limited and not conclusive either so the paint thermite issue is still open ended.

you see some people actually pay attention.....did i subscribe to no plane laser beam....ball theories...nope....but if it does get shown to be true at some point then i think it could be possible.

am i a remote plane theory person....well after all the research i have done on Dov Zakheim ptech and mitre corp....it is plausible to me....and now after watching the p4t documentary recently with the radar formations...it is even more than possible.

now not to get off topic....this thread is about wtc 7....but all the collapses are part of the discussion as all collapses on the day have relevance IMHO

now your statement....how does let m=0 I mean really.....it is a mathematical variable that we let the value equal zero to show how the words of Bazant saying 100% of the debris could be outside the footprint and the collapse would still progress....so letting m = 0 makes his statement real.....and applies to his equation so we do that.....and guess what....it makes the Energy in the collapse......
I left that open for you to solve......because if your as smart as you portray yourself to be then this should be easy for you.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
sorry not going to trail off in off topic discussions......and like i say....go through my posts...i have and will when appropriate quote Bazants paper......

I'm not going to read through your entire post history to find what should be simple for you to quote. As we will see later in the post, you don't even do your own quoting.


Bloody hot right now....lol

You're not joking, any animosity aside it has been absolutely lovely and I've been alternating between the deck chair and a nice cold pint inside. No complaints about this weekend from me!


now when he and greening did this first paper...they had it out there....get this......Within....48hrs

His first paper wasn't with Greening. That one came later.


and you take the paper as god.

That's not fair either, I don't take it as god, I just don't accept criticisms that come without supporting evidence.


they made assumptions about what was inside and outside the foot prints......and not only that.....he was stated as saying that...get this...100% of the debris could fall outside the foot print and still collapse......

I don't believe that for a second, the papers certainly don't say it.


all his calculations require that the mass (which has to be the case) maintains that mass in order to complete crush down....so therefore the debris has to remain within the footprint.

This isn't true either. There's a 'mass shedding fraction' K_out in the paper, this gives good agreement up to 0.5, that's half of all mass being thrown out upon every collision. That's a lot of mass being thrown out. I also found that the image you linked wasn't even extracted by you! You just took it directly from here: the911forum.freeforums.org...

So unless you're Major Tom then you're just parroting what someone else says here, and in fact we can tell this in the next section:


now you see the differential equation how the mass is the factor that remains throughout the equation in order to complete crush down....now this is an easy easy task.....LET m=0

These aren't differential equations, it's simple algebra and you would know that if you even know what paper you were quoting. You say 'let m=0' but 'm' is in two parts, each referring to the mass of the floor slab. So by letting m=0 you would be saying 'imagine there were no towers, there would be no collapse!'.

It's nonsense, and not the work of an engineer. Are you actually a Structural Engineer? Do you have the qualification, or are you a trade worker?


in case you do not understand why....the centre of mass is now not over centre of structure...it has shifted with the tilt.....now THE ONLY way to stop that tilt...which did happen.....would be to remove all resistance below the fulcrum of the tilt....in other words....the contact point of the tilt......well surprise...how did that happen...please explain it to me....but you can't....i think you will go on another attack.

What happens if the fulcrum fails? If the fulcrum is a steel column, it loses strength as it bends, so it will fail at some point. What happens then?


Also just as a side note...I did not go to university for english....I went for math,physics,....you know...ummmm....engineering.

I'd believe you if you knew the difference between K_out and 'm', but you clearly don't, so why should anyone believe anything you say? I really don't want to mean this aggressively but come on man, you can't be serious. You can't post someone elses picture with a description you don't understand, then make up a bunch of talk about the mass fraction when you don't even know what it is.

I at least admit my own ignorance.
edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: wording

edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: spelling



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
bunch of pics snipped

For a start, half of these don't show anything remotely 'suspicious' or they include ejecta from MER floors etc, but even so, who would be setting off bombs during a huge collapse? that would be insanity. Controlled Demolition works by doing quick, precise cuts and letting gravity do the rest of the work. Who on the planet would decide they needed to use more explosive?

Even if they did, why are they even bothering to cut external columns? Did they want to be detected or something?


Good, that means that at least half are using their brains and most likely waking up more people.

It's been more than a decade, how long is it going to take?



I don’t know because these firemen didn't clarify. But I do know that firefighters know the diffidence between secondary explosives used to kill first responders and potentially explosive house hold items or office supplies. What do you think caused them?

We know what caused them because we can read the accounts of people who were there. Jet fuel was reported on practically every level of both towers, and there are accounts of people literally in elevators that filled with jet fuel which then ignited. Of course I half expect now you will negate these witness statements and oral histories or ignore them entirely, even though just moments ago people were insisting that they be listened to.

I hope you prove me wrong



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube


...but when it comes to Bazants paper...it was used completely to try to fool the average joe into believing the NIST report as they only mandated to proceed up to initiation and they needed Bazant to show progressive collapse mechanism at all costs....well it is not working.



This is what NIST has to say about what happened after initiation:


Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.
As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core.


And if you look at debris pile you will find the truss seats that connected the floors to the columns are indeed damaged or missing.



Sorry Truther. The evidence supports NIST not you.

www.aws.org...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Leaked Confidential and Predecisonal NIST Report on Building 7


At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed. Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified.


This leaked doc can be found in many places on the internet, here is just one source:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Here's a video of an eye witness that saw a flash before WTC7 came down:

NEW WTC7 Eyewitness - "Saw A Big Flash Then The Building Came Down"



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
Where are the videos of these firemen talking about the building moving? It's ok to post Craig Bartmer because I can post what I want and the video stands up, a load of dubious copy and paste quotes could be false, Craig Bartmer's video is real, tangible evidence.

There aren't videos, this was 2001, people weren't exactly running around with cameraphones. The people involved with the command process on the day have since stated explicitly what happened, and the oral histories and various transcripts from the day support it. Just because you have a video of one person speaking and a document of another person speaking is no reason to trust the video. I assume it's only coincidence that one supports your point and one does not.


As Barry Jennings states clearly in his uncut video, the explosion came from underneath him, well before the towers collapsed, and he states he went in there just after 9am, and that the explosion happened soon afterwards.

We know it was quite a bit after 9am, because the OEM was evacuated when he reached it. That means it was as late as 9:45am, 14 minutes before Tower #1s collapse. This is the likely timeline of events, the explosion he felt was the collapse of WTC2.


A former Air Force medic, Kevin McPadden was stationed just north of WTC-7 just before it fell, and actually heard the demolition countdown and explosions as the building started to fall.

Despite the fact kevin McPadden's story has changed, he still paints a red cross worker as having some sort of inside demolition knowledge. If indeed a countdown was being broadcast as he's claimed, then we can count almost everyone on local radio channels as a conspirator.

Has any evidence of this ever emerged? Bear in mind his original statement was that he didn't hear a countdown, he didn't hear anything directly suspicious, he just felt afraid and ran. That's changed since then and might have changed since the last time I checked.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


So this jet fuel flowed down 80 odd floors to the lobby, where it hung around until the firefighters arrived, then exploded with sufficient force to bring the lobby down on them. Have I got that right?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
So this jet fuel flowed down 80 odd floors to the lobby, where it hung around until the firefighters arrived, then exploded with sufficient force to bring the lobby down on them. Have I got that right?

There were a number of fireballs, jet fuel requires oxygen in the air to burn, so it's hard to say what happened when. Obviously the witness accounts are a bit hard to decipher with regards to time. Still, yeah everyone from random office workers to building management to building workers to fire dept mentioned jet fuel and fireballs, and explicitly so in places like the lobby.

I don't think it so much 'flowed', rather 'fell'.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The FEMA report said the following about a piece of steel recovered from WTC7:


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


FEMA 403, Appendix C Limited Metallurgical Examination

www.fema.gov...

Downloadable PDF

also on the NIST website.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1


I'm not wasting time. I don't know how many people visit this site but I’m sure it's a lot. Every time you post your nonsense you expose it to many people. All I got to do is keep you making a fool of yourself for as long as possible. People are waking up, and the bigger the lie the angrier people get when they find out the truth.

Plus it's fun. Keep on clicking.
edit on 26-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


So you're back to cliaming that the conspirators pay people to continue a debate that actively harms their story.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I know, but surely you can see that that's ridiculous?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Are you saying the buildings were destroyed with acid ?

You do know what corrosion is ?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
reply to post by waypastvne
 

The FEMA report said the following about a piece of steel recovered from WTC7:

Sure, and this has been twisted into some huge suspicious event by people who want you to do their work for them. In reality though NIST also analysed this steel, and the conclusions do not particularly help for the conspiracy case. You never hear about these things though, because the people giving you these claims only tell you the suspicious ones.

NIST found that the other piece of steel affected in this way originated below floor 50 in the towers, and the damage likely occurred to it while horizontal. This obviously can't be a reason for collapse, and there's a bunch of other factors too. Kinda off topic too, just spend the time to do your own research and you'll find there's a lot more info out there that's been kept from you.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


i don't mind admitting when i grab the wrong equation i was trying to grab the one next to it....the differential equation of crush down propagation...np admitting the mistake there......and k out is the debris being expelled at the crushing front....not the entire mass of the upper block....as i have said i will always admit mistakes.
and even thank you for the pointing out the error....which is part of what is being human.....
and as i was doing this to get the papers i grabbed the bazant verdue paper....Sorry

And i know the first paper was the bazant Zhou......but i was reading the report of the bazant greening paper

geeze right there it shows how he had to keep rehashing his reports to fit the mistakes that were being pointed out.....Also i have no need to parrot...i can speak quite freely of my own accord.

anyways.....K-out again is the debris being expelled at the crushing front.

It is not the mass of the upper block.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


It's nice to see someone admitting a mistake mate, I apologise if I was a bit harsh. It's just that I come across people making claims all the time when they don't know what they're talking about.

Lets get back to the technical discussion rather than slinging mud. K_out is the amount of mass shed per floor, and it maintains good agreement with observables until around 0.5 if I remember correctly. That's a pretty high value, half of all mass being ejected per floor? Even the perimeter columns and most of the flooring would barely make this up, and they obviously didn't get chucked out instantly.

That seems to be what you wanted, and I'm wondering what other complaints you have.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

There aren't videos, this was 2001, people weren't exactly running around with cameraphones. The people involved with the command process on the day have since stated explicitly what happened, and the oral histories and various transcripts from the day support it. Just because you have a video of one person speaking and a document of another person speaking is no reason to trust the video. I assume it's only coincidence that one supports your point and one does not.


That's weird, there untold reporters grabbing people to make statements that day, there are literally hundreds of eye witness accounts recorded on video by news channels, some of them were firemen. You posting a piece of text claiming to be from a fireman is not hard evidence. If you have no video then please link to the official investigation reports where these accounts are available.


We know it was quite a bit after 9am, because the OEM was evacuated when he reached it. That means it was as late as 9:45am, 14 minutes before Tower #1s collapse. This is the likely timeline of events, the explosion he felt was the collapse of WTC2.


No, Barry clearly states just after 9am, on video, where is the video of anyone saying it was later? You are making times up, you have provided no video of anyone saying anything to the contrary. Barry is very adamant, and the timings of his phone calls do not lie.

Where did you pluck the time 9:45am from? Please provide your official source.


Despite the fact Kevin McPadden's story has changed, he still paints a red cross worker as having some sort of inside demolition knowledge. If indeed a countdown was being broadcast as he's claimed, then we can count almost everyone on local radio channels as a conspirator.


My word, you OS upholders make everything up as you go along, when a piece of official evidence comes along that you cannot refute, you say they changed their story! OK, post a video where he has changed his story, I doubt you can because you made yet another story up!

Why can you 'count almost everyone on local radio channels as a conspirator'?? What on earth does the local radio have to do with his official video account?!

I think anyone with half a brain and no demo knowledge would know how to interpret what Kevin was experiencing at that time! All the info is in the video, quite easy to work out there was a controlled demolition going on! Again, you are making stuff up, but then I suspect you have reasons to lie.


Has any evidence of this ever emerged? Bear in mind his original statement was that he didn't hear a countdown, he didn't hear anything directly suspicious, he just felt afraid and ran.


What original statement? Please do post the video. He would have no reason to lie, what would he gain from it?

It's a truthful account, the evidence is there, again you are making even more stuff up! You're rubbish at lying, you cannot fool people that have clearly done more research that you have. Please stick to truthful facts and if you keep lying and not providing some real evidence to back up what you are claiming then you will be marked as either incompetent or lying, and will be ignored by in any future debating.

To conclusively prove you are lying exponent, here are both videos that capture first responder Kevin McPadden's account.




edit on 27-5-2012 by kidtwist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I don't think it so much 'flowed', rather 'fell'.


I wouldn't say fell. I would say sucked in. The fuel went up the elevator shafts too.

When AA11 smashed through the towers the 19,500 cu ft of air contained in its fuselage passed through the building in less 1/4 of a second, Also 36756 cu ft of static air had to be displaced as it passed through. This is going to leave a large low pressure area in its wake, which of course is going to suck air out of the elevator shafts. When the air was sucked back in it contained atomised jet fuel. The rest is self explanatory and the evidence supports it.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
and the timings of his phone calls do not lie.



Please provide your official source for the timing of his phone calls.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
When AA11 smashed through the towers the 19,500 cu ft of air contained in its fuselage passed through the building in less 1/4 of a second


That's a pretty neat trick for a plane that never got off the ground, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Here's an image of the flight trackers for the morning of 9/11/01...



If you want to look up the flight on the BOTS website yourself, you can do so here...

www.bts.gov...




top topics



 
46
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join