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: 30
46
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
I know you are referring to WTC 1 and 2 but there was no jet fuel in WTC 7. Riddle me that.

I agree, correspondingly we have no reports of jet fuel or fires in WTC7 until after the collapse when jet fuel would have been burned off.

I'm not sure what your point is here exactly, as nobody is claiming that jet fuel has any special properties to damage a building.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

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.



How do you where the fuel went ? You are assuming like Gdeck. Same school?

How do you know air(and static air) did what it did and the velocity of it from the plane fuselage?

What evidence? From NIST? And you all know this jargon how?Did you do some special test?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK


If floors simply pancaked wouldn't it be more likely the bolts would break not the welds? Generally a welded joint is stronger than a bolted joint.


A properly welded joint is stronger than the base metal

engineering.purdue.edu...


They failed in the path of least resistance as would be expected.



Detached main truss seats failed near one of two welded joints associated with the standoff plates. Inspection of the weld failures showed that fracture typically occurred in the location with the lowest cross sectional area.



If your pancake/tree-tipping theory is correct the core should have been visible from the building rapid decent. You are aware of the WTC tower's structural design?.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Sure, the most detail is provided by a 2002 interview with Peter Hayden:
(no link shorteners work, so this is the full URL you'll have to manually copy and paste)
web.archive.org...://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Unfortunately the original firehouse link is offline, but archive.org still have it. The oral histories can be found here: graphics8.nytimes.com...


I read through both Peter Hayden PDF's and there is nothing relevant at all in those interviews? Are you just confused? Can you put into your own words what I was supposed to find in those interviews.



Just after 9am the OEM wasn't evacuated. The two times we have for that are 9:30 and 9:45am. It can't be the case that the OEM was both evacuated but not evacuated at the same time. The times of evacuation can be found on many sites, like the 911 timeline, or the oral histories shown above.


Again, third time, Barry distinctly said in all his interviews (video & radio) that he arrived in WTC7 just after 9am, upon arrival he said there was nobody at their desks, their coffee's were still smoking, and he noted that it was odd that it was empty, so obviously the people inside should have been there, but strangely were not. I do find this odd, as I'm sure many people do.

Barry is the best witness account regarding the timeline and events at WTC7, and his word is what I am taking. Who has reported the 2 times of 9:30am & 9:45am? As you say they both cannot be right, and neither match up with Barry's account, so whoever has made a claim of 9:30am & 9:45am have made opposing stories, and cannot be taken seriously. What are the names of the people that stated the two different times of 9:30am & 9:45am, which are totally different to Barry's account?



Firstly, please don't accuse me of making something up before you know for sure. Secondly, what is 'official evidence' here?


I'm not accusing you, I know you are because what you are saying goes against official eye witness accounts by official people, which are captured on video, and should be used as official evidence.


In the very first video you link, he immediately talks a red cross rep saying that someone is going to bring a building down and that he had a radio that was playing a countdown, and had to tell Kevin to run for his life.

Of course, this isn't true, because the collapse zone was set up way earlier in the day and the public barricade he was at was much further back than he's implying.


What public barricade are you on about, he doesn't mention anything about a public barricade? All he says is that he's told to "stay behind this line, because they are thinking about bringing the building down."

Why are you making up what he said? Both of his video accounts say nothing that matches what you just wrote! Why do you keep making up your own versions of other people's accounts?!



Here's a previous statement by him:
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."


Where is this supposed to be from? I'm going off the two video accounts he made that are identical and both mention the countdown. Please link the video of where he said what you are claiming.



According to Kevin, the countdown for demolition of WTC7 was broadcast over a local Red Cross radio. If that's the case then hundreds if not thousands of people would have been aware of this countdown, but yet nobody has come forward. It doesn't add up does it?


What's to say the red cross person wasnt an official red cross person? It was an inside job so the red cross person could well have been part of the demolition team, but disguised as a red cross worker! I would highly doubt that there would have been hundreds or thousands of red cross workers with radios, maybe one per team, and the fact none have come forward probably means the one at the demolition zone could have been a phoney red cross worker, disguised as such to give them the access they needed. after all, what would be the point of a red cross worker on the edge of a demolition zone?!



Please, feel free to list them. I suspect you have nothing other than "you disagree with me". I mean for god's sake Kevin starts to implicate Amy Goodman, is there any limit to how many people must have known about this but never said anything


I dont need to list them, you display them. I disagree with you for sure, but I disagree with other people and know it's just because they haven't done their homework, but in your case, and some other OS upholder's cases, I know that you are just Making stuff up as you go along. You are not dealing with dumb ass monkeys here!

As for Amy Goodman, she can clearly be seen with a pad watching WTC7 come down, MSM cannot be trusted, they are the governments brainwashing tools, so I dont trust all journalists. What I find strange with her is that she did not speak out, even though she was asked to many times. She is an evasive gate keeper.

Also, the videos (NIST restricted) of her have been removed as much as possible, she has definitely tried to cover her tracks. She was in a hurry to go somewhere after the demolition too. In that WTC7 video, where people are watching the demolition, there is no sound at the start, just like a lot of the WTC7 videos, they have been deliberately edited to remove the sound of explosives.

A lot of crucial NIST videos are regularly removed from youtube, and as I'm sure you know NIST ignored the initial FOIA request of all their evidence for a good while, they only released it after the lawsuit, and then in dribs and drabs to give them time to edit the evidence. Many videos and photos have clearly been edited.

Everything stinks to high heaven. Dont expect us to believe the OS you're trying to push!


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



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by exponent

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'.


I know you are referring to WTC 1 and 2 but there was no jet fuel in WTC 7. Riddle me that.



What puzzles me is why should the jet fuel only go into the lift shaft, ignite and spread fire and not do the same with the stairwells?

Another thing that puzzles me is that if the airplanes that struck the WTCs towers were traveling at 600 mph, then the burst fuel would also be traveling at that speed when igniting within the towers and would have ejected out of the buildings. Surely very little of the burning fuel would have gone into the lift shafts and what ever went in would have been stopped by the lift cars.

I suspect that airplane fuel would have contributed very little to the collapse of the towers.
edit on 27-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Another thing that puzzles me is that if the airplanes that struck the WTCs towers were traveling at 600 mph, then the burst fuel would also be traveling at that speed when igniting within the towers and would have ejected out of the buildings. Surely very little of the burning fuel would have gone into the lift shafts and what ever went in would have been stopped by the lift cars.

I suspect that airplane fuel would have contributed very little to the collapse of the towers.
edit on 27-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)


Yes you are correct about the fuel. It was not a commercial airliner, either a small plane/drone or missile disguised as a plane, so the fuel load would have been lower or non existent, and let's assume it was the plane they want us to believe, it would have burnt up all the fuel upon impact with the initial explosion. None would have travelled down the lift shafts all the way into the lower basement!

SMALL, DEFINITELY BLACK, 'POSSIBLY' A PLANE

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



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
What is it with people and terms on this forum?! I'll use another phrase if you like, but people are incredibly touchy over anything, including 'Truth Movement'!


After reading your posts here, I'd like to say I think you're being bullied a little. For some reason, humans have a strong inner-drive to categorize and apply labels to anything and anyone. In the 9/11 Conspiracy thread, you're either a "truther" or an "OSer". That doesn't leave much room for people who are genuinely open-minded and are just trying to objectively analyze the situation. The inflammatory personal digs between the two sides doesn't help much either. I, too, am just here for a stimulating, intellectual discussion on this topic, and find it frustrating and disheartening to have to wade though so much personal contempt just to engage in a rational discourse. It happens on both sides of the aisle, and really only serves to divert attention away from the actual argument, and onto personal pride and character. I hope you'll stick around though... this discussion needs more people who are capable of talking about the issues in an objective manner, regardless of personal beliefs.

Side note to both "truthers" and "OSers"... chill out people! We're here to hypothesize, theorize, and discuss what is arguably the most important incident in contemporary world history. If your agenda is to "prove" anything, you've missed the point. Only by letting go of our personal attachments can we participate in a rational conversation. This back and forth "truther" vs "OSer" stuff is complete horsesh|t, and has no business here.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
I read through both Peter Hayden PDF's and there is nothing relevant at all in those interviews? Are you just confused? Can you put into your own words what I was supposed to find in those interviews.

I'm not confused. The info regarding the transit I linked but you'll have to copy it manually as ATS apparently bans url shorteners and it is an url the forum can't parse.

In the PDF (he is the fire chief, not the EMS) you can see a summary of his actions earlier that day. Including burned victims in the lobby, the number of people jumping and the fears of collapse before the first collapse. The PDFs on that site are well worth reading to get an understanding of how events unfolded for the people on the ground.


Again, third time, Barry distinctly said in all his interviews (video & radio) that he arrived in WTC7 just after 9am, upon arrival he said there was nobody at their desks, their coffee's were still smoking, and he noted that it was odd that it was empty, so obviously the people inside should have been there, but strangely were not. I do find this odd, as I'm sure many people do.

Barry is the best witness account regarding the timeline and events at WTC7, and his word is what I am taking. Who has reported the 2 times of 9:30am & 9:45am? As you say they both cannot be right, and neither match up with Barry's account, so whoever has made a claim of 9:30am & 9:45am have made opposing stories, and cannot be taken seriously. What are the names of the people that stated the two different times of 9:30am & 9:45am, which are totally different to Barry's account?

I find it hilarious that the second there is a contradiction your first instinct is to declare the other two sources fraudulent before you even know who they are. I hesitate to even post the details because we can already see that you're just going to ignore whatever is said.

The time of 9:30 was stated by OEM staff when interviewed for the 911 commission. It keeps their names private.
The same is true for 9:44, which is gathered from FDNY interviews conducted by NIST.

There's no way all of these can be true of course, so we should look to correlate between the firefighters we know were there and what Barry Jennings described. What sort of evidence would convince you that it was closer to 9:30 before he arrived, and therefore a good match with the collapse of WTC2?


What public barricade are you on about, he doesn't mention anything about a public barricade? All he says is that he's told to "stay behind this line, because they are thinking about bringing the building down."

Why are you making up what he said? Both of his video accounts say nothing that matches what you just wrote! Why do you keep making up your own versions of other people's accounts?!

Because I have read and educated myself on the issue, I know what people are referring to. Where this video highlights Amy Goodman is where Kevin was located.


Where is this supposed to be from? I'm going off the two video accounts he made that are identical and both mention the countdown. Please link the video of where he said what you are claiming.

Here: www.prisonplanet.com...


What's to say the red cross person wasnt an official red cross person? It was an inside job so the red cross person could well have been part of the demolition team, but disguised as a red cross worker!

At a public barricade blocks from the WTC? with a radio broadcasting an uncovered countdown? how farcical is this going to get?


I dont meed to list them, you display them. I disagree with you for sure, but I disagree with other people and know it's just because they haven't done their homework, bu

So basically you can insult me and claim anything you like, but never with any evidence to back it up, and your answer is that you don't need evidence?
there's a shock.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
What puzzles me is why should the jet fuel only go into the lift shaft, ignite and spread fire and not do the same with the stairwells?

I believe the only accounts of stairwells we have from that level was in the North tower, and it was where the walls mostly survived to shield it. The rest of the stairwells were impassable, and so the people may well have faced jet fuel but we would never have known.


Another thing that puzzles me is that if the airplanes that struck the WTCs towers were traveling at 600 mph, then the burst fuel would also be traveling at that speed when igniting within the towers and would have ejected out of the buildings. Surely very little of the burning fuel would have gone into the lift shafts and what ever went in would have been stopped by the lift cars.

Sure, quite a lot would be coating all of the furniture and office partitions etc. I doubt a really significant quantity went down the shafts, but it was enough to be noticed on almost every level and burn quite a few people. Lifts don't fit completely into their shaft, there are big gaps around them, especially in older buildings.


I suspect that airplane fuel would have contributed very little to the collapse of the towers.
edit on 27-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

According to NIST its only effect in terms of collapse was to ignite the whole fire at once, leading to rapid progression and the inability of people to get out from above the impact zone.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


If your pancake/tree-tipping theory is correct the core should have been visible from the building rapid decent. You are aware of the WTC tower's structural design?.



We are far more aware of it than you, I'm sure. And yes, we did see the core in both towers after collapse. in the South Tower we saw a large section, and in the North Tower as the "Spire".

I do find it interesting that you come here with such a smug attitude, as if you know more than us, and yet, every time you show serious ignorance of everything we talk about, and even less knowledge about anything more complex. And to boot, we are getting tired of the snippy remarks, especially your personal incredulity. That got old fast. You do know that personal incredulity is not a good counter-argument.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Hey plube... I think you've provided excellent information as to why the NIST/Bazant explanations are flawed and are contrary to known and established physics. I'd like to simplify some of the technical fundamentals you are describing for the benefit of those without a scientific or engineering background. (Please correct any inaccuracies, and I'll edit this post accordingly).

PE means "potential energy". That relates to the the energy that is inherent in all matter at rest, and has the potential to be released if that matter is acted upon by a force, such as gravity or inertia. Before 9/11, the buildings stood erect and maintained stability because the configuration of the structure itself provided sufficient strength, or resistance, to negate the "potential energy" of the building matter in terms of gravity.

KE means "kinetic energy". KE is simply the energy in all matter that is in motion, caused by its acceleration in relation to its gravitational PE.

The relationship between PE and KE is best demonstrated by the following scenario:
The cars of a roller coaster reach their maximum kinetic energy when at the bottom of their path. When they start rising, the kinetic energy begins to be converted to gravitational potential energy. The sum of kinetic and potential energy in the system remains constant, ignoring losses to friction.

The question boils down to, was there sufficient PE in the buildings to produce the required KE to bring the buildings down the way that has been described by the official reports. All the available data says that there was not. Using the hypothesis and physics described by the NIST report, one would have to accept that the resistance of the steel support structures of the entire building was insufficient to neutralize the KE of the tops of buildings as they fell. Given the PE of that matter (i.e. the total mass of top portions of the buildings directly above the position of fault), it is inconceivable and contrary to the laws of physics that the totality of the steel support structures BELOW the point of fault would lose their own properties of PE, in the form of resistance, so as to allow for an unencumbered systemic collapse at near-freefall speeds.

Once you understand these fundamentals of physics, which most people do not, it becomes very clear that what the NIST report is asking you to accept is nothing less than magic.
edit on 5/27/2012 by draco49 because: remove quotes



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


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?


Nothing suspicious? How do you look at yourself in the mirror... There wouldn’t be a huge collapse without bombs.


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?


More explosives?


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


So why do we see squibs in controlled demolitions of other buildings? What the hell are you talking about...


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


As you know in this case it took 65 years.
Gulf of Tonkin incident it took 40 years.


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.


So the firemen were talking about the same jet fuel fireballs which destroyed windows in the impact area, also destroyed several walls and caused cave-ins 400 meters below, and the Operations Control Center on the 22 floor?

If that's what you are talking about then there is a small problem.


"Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris."
(FEMA WTC report, chapter 2)




edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Sure, quite a lot would be coating all of the furniture and office partitions etc. I doubt a really significant quantity went down the shafts, but it was enough to be noticed on almost every level and burn quite a few people. Lifts don't fit completely into their shaft, there are big gaps around them, especially in older buildings.


The majority of jet-fuel (kerosene) would have been consumed by the initial fireball created upon impact. Very little residual fuel would have been left in its liquid or gaseous form after the initial explosions; certainly not enough to come in contact with, and ignite, all of the steel below the point of fault. The elevators in WTC1&2 were segmented, staggered, and sealed. It was a very modular system that was designed to allow for the preservation of the building in the event of localized fire and/or destruction. These were not buildings that were outdated in their engineering, or sloppy in their execution. They were meticulously designed and constructed, exceeding the standards of materials and construction in place when they were built.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
Using the hypothesis and physics described by the NIST report, one would have to accept that the resistance of the steel support structures of the

entire building

was insufficient to neutralize the KE of the tops of buildings as they fell.



I have highlighted your error.

The only thing providing resistance is the truss seats not the entire building.





posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
Hey plube... I think you've provided excellent information as to why the NIST/Bazant explanations are flawed and are contrary to known and established physics. I'd like to simplify some of the technical fundamentals you are describing for the benefit of those without a scientific or engineering background. (Please correct any inaccuracies, and I'll edit this post accordingly).

I'm not Plube, but I thought I should have a quick go if you don't mind.


PE means "potential energy". That relates to the the energy that is inherent in all matter at rest, and has the potential to be released if that matter is acted upon by a force, such as gravity or inertia. Before 9/11, the buildings stood erect and maintained stability because the configuration of the structure itself provided sufficient strength, or resistance, to negate the "potential energy" of the building matter in terms of gravity.

Bold indicates the part I have a problem with. The weight of an object will remain constant (assuming a homogeneous gravity field) no matter how great its potential energy.

What the structure of the WTC resisted was the weight of itself, not its own energy. The energy stored as potential was added to the structure as cranes raised the parts when it was built. This did not increase the weight of the parts, just the energy they contain.


The question boils down to, was there sufficient PE in the buildings to produce the required KE to bring the buildings down the way that has been described by the official reports. All the available data says that there was not. Using the hypothesis and physics described by the NIST report, one would have to accept that the resistance of the steel support structures of the entire building was insufficient to neutralize the KE of the tops of buildings as they fell.

I'm not sure if you are paraphasing here or directly supporting this statement, but I felt it was worthy of note. The available data in fact emphatically supports the ability of the building to collapse. In fact even when biased for survival, the amount of energy available can be as high as 8 times that required to fail an entire floor of columns. Several papers have now been published to this effect and survived all significant criticism. There has been no reply to them in years.

Just wanted to make it clear that despite the claims people will make about how 'bazant is useless', it remains a published series of papers in an auspicious journal. It's hard to believe this would occur if it had no utility whatsoever.
edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: Change italics to bold



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Nothing suspicious? How do you look at yourself in the mirror... There wouldn’t be a huge collapse without bombs.

Again with the insults. You're using circular logic here, you can't identify bombs by identifying a collapse which relies on identifying bombs.

You see 'squibs' in demolitions because they have no concerns for remaining hidden or covertly carrying out demolition.


More explosives?

Yes, surely if you were carrying out this conspiracy you'd use the quietest, least visible destruction method possible right? If just one person got a close up shot of a huge thundering explosion taking out a column then it's game over, conspiracy exposed.

Why are you theorising then that they used gigantic amounts of explosive, blowing out exterior columns even ahead of the blast front where it would be visible?! It's simply incomprehensible that anyone would make a plan so impossibly incoherent in its construction.

I doubt it matters, but for what it's worth, quite a lot of the squibs shown there originate from locations that had significant air ducts and connections to the rest of the building, prime targets for any pressure release. Not to mention that you can time the duration of the expulsion and it is much much longer than any explosive duration. Try it for yourself, find one you think particularly suspicious, open the video in an editor and time how long you can see it pushing out for. Then find me an explosive that can sever a column but take almost half a second to explode.


So the firemen were talking about the same jet fuel fireballs which destroyed windows in the impact area, also destroyed several walls and caused cave-ins 400 meters below, and the Operations Control Center on the 22 floor?

If that's what you are talking about then there is a small problem.

There's no problem here, fireballs did not cause any significant structural damage anywhere in the tower. They damaged some marble panelling and smashed some glass in the lobby. They blew open a door and burned quite a few people. None of that is serious structural damage.

I'm afraid you have been so influenced by these claims that you are seeing bombs everywhere, but don't stop to think it through. Please, tell me exactly why a conspirator would plant bombs in the lobby, the place that is going to have literally the most attention out of the entire complex focused on it. One picture taken at the wrong point, one videocamera at one of the world's premier tourist sites. How can you propose this theory without giving a moment's thought to the irrationality it would take to put such a thing into action?

I doubt I'll ever know.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
The majority of jet-fuel (kerosene) would have been consumed by the initial fireball created upon impact. Very little residual fuel would have been left in its liquid or gaseous form after the initial explosions; certainly not enough to come in contact with, and ignite, all of the steel below the point of fault.

Actually due to the limited volume of air, only a small proportion actually burned in the initial fireballs. Even so, the volume was not enormous, but significant liquid fuel would have remained. The calculations are surprisingly simple for this and are available in the NIST report.


The elevators in WTC1&2 were segmented, staggered, and sealed. It was a very modular system that was designed to allow for the preservation of the building in the event of localized fire and/or destruction. These were not buildings that were outdated in their engineering, or sloppy in their execution. They were meticulously designed and constructed, exceeding the standards of materials and construction in place when they were built.

There's some debate about that, but I'm not going to go sticking my opinion in on an engineering code matter. The elevator shafts weren't as sealed as you make out, and even if they were, we have many witness accounts that are hard to explain without jet fuel.

For example:

Firefighter Peter Blaich
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didnt recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if youre camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I dont recall if I actually saw people in there.
What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.


There are many more.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Italics indicate the part I have a problem with. The weight of an object will remain constant (assuming a homogeneous gravity field) no matter how great its potential energy.

What the structure of the WTC resisted was the weight of itself, not its own energy. The energy stored as potential was added to the structure as cranes raised the parts when it was built. This did not increase the weight of the parts, just the energy they contain.


Weight is a measure of mass and density in relation to gravity. The property of weight is of no consequence because it is already accounted for within the calculations of both gravitational potential energy, and kinetic energy.


I'm not sure if you are paraphasing here or directly supporting this statement, but I felt it was worthy of note. The available data in fact emphatically supports the ability of the building to collapse. In fact even when biased for survival, the amount of energy available can be as high as 8 times that required to fail an entire floor of columns. Several papers have now been published to this effect and survived all significant criticism. There has been no reply to them in years.

Just wanted to make it clear that despite the claims people will make about how 'bazant is useless', it remains a published series of papers in an auspicious journal. It's hard to believe this would occur if it had no utility whatsoever.


The available data and accepted laws of physics do not support the conclusions of NIST and Bazant reports. It's those reports that emphatically support their own conclusions while picking and choosing which parts of the data they used to come to their conclusions. If you have links to those papers you referenced, can you please post them? I would like to check them out. More information is always welcome



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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?


What part of my reply claimed that anybody gets pain for anything?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The only thing providing resistance is the truss seats not the entire building.


That's just not accurate. Stable resistance of the entire structure was achieved by employing the use of segmented, tapered, central support columns from the foundation all the way to the top. Saying that the truss seating was what was providing the gravitational resistance is disingenuous. The tapering of those steel core supports is similar to the physics behind pyramids, and why they are so structurally sound. Larger supports of greater diameter were used at the base because they needed to support the greatest amount of mass. Further up, the supports were smaller in diameter. This design model was used because it allows for consistent system stability, making efficient use of the heavy, dense steel. This also means that the PE of the top portion of the buildings were less than the lower portions of the building, further contradicting the official reports.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join