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.

 

So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

page: 12
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


What are you talking about the experts not expressing their convictions against the government lies about 911?

The Architects and Engineers for Truth group numbers more than

1,000 experts.

Your post in terms of my post and perspective reads as extremely nonsensical, to me.




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Show us the solid research study documenting the 100's of thousands of experts who support the government's 911 story around the world.

My sense is that experts in other countries are even MORE against the government story than the 50% or so in the USA.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358

reply to post by wmd_2008
 




Well what about the 100,000's world wide that DON'T think that.


You would not just be making stuff up? Can you prove that 100,000's DON'T think that. Prove it! Go on!

If this is all you have then perhaps you may want to look at it from the other side. The other side has real stuff to play with.


P


Well if YOU think they are right and it was a CD do you not think other architect/engineers would have joined in rather than putting in great effort to look at the problem, and changing building codes or now looking at doing proper calculations of steel structures in a fire situaution rather than just making assumptions of the behaviour under fire.

Many STRUCTURAL engineering companies around the world produced reports of the events of that day and made recommendations to try and stop progressive collapse and develop systems to model thermal loadings due to fire.

Some of us have the ADVANTAGE of talking to these people on a regular basis and seeing the documentation produced and also the efforts of manufacturers to improve resistance to bomb blasts due to the current climate and not relying on uneducated,inexperienced comments from 9/11 conspiracy sites.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Show us the solid research study documenting the 100's of thousands of experts who support the government's 911 story around the world.

My sense is that experts in other countries are even MORE against the government story than the 50% or so in the USA.


So there are only 4000 architects/engineers in the USA if you 50% is correct

As AE911TRUTH has about 1900 !
edit on 6-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I think your assumptions are more flawed than mine.

Solid research indicates that 50% of NEW YORKERS disbelieve the government story about 911.

That would include the architects and engineers.

IT's NOT a farfetched extrapolation to ASSUME that roughly 50% of the architects and engineers in the rest of the country would be similarly split down the middle--however many there are.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I think your assumptions are more flawed than mine.

Solid research indicates that 50% of NEW YORKERS disbelieve the government story about 911.

That would include the architects and engineers.

IT's NOT a farfetched extrapolation to ASSUME that roughly 50% of the architects and engineers in the rest of the country would be similarly split down the middle--however many there are.


I hope your job has nothing to do with statistics
I would love you to quote extrapolated figures like that to the people I work for and with


Here is a report from just one company ARUP looking at what happened during the fires on 9/11

www.arup.com...

They provide engineering, design, planning, project management and consulting services for all aspects of the built environment.

They have offices in 42 countries and 10,000+ employees.Never heard of anyone from that company supporting ae911truth.

NO engineer I have spoken to whenever this topic has been brought up from independant engineers who work from home to those on site has said that they think it was controlled demolition.

How often do YOU talk to engineers



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sonny , I'm not confused . You are just dodging direct questions.
edit on 6-6-2013 by SimonPeter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by -PLB-
 

What did you expect the investigators to say even if they knew it was an inside job . You don't mess with the big boys like one president did . They had to come up with the official story .


It seems a pretty odd coincidence to me that the evidence of engineers agreeing that it's an inside job happens to be identical to them believing that it's not an inside job.

Where I come from we call that fitting the evidence to the theory.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The part that is not identical, is the fanatical belief that protects the real perpetrators of this event.

The people cannot handle the repercussions, including many firms and engineers, so they actually created a scenario where, load handling in buildings needs to be relooked at.

In fact nothing has changed, but they cannot even admit that, instead reworded the textbooks to look "different".

The design was perfect, really.. and we have the fanatics that must believe it is a failure of building design, and all makes sense within the reality they have, that all enemies are what we are told.

Good little soldiers!



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 


"The people" can handle a lot more than you think, you are not as spcial as you believe.

Why do you believe so strongly that you are right by the way?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


If you want to know more about the more scholarly aspects of what is known about 9/11, it would be a good idea for you to check out "9/11 - Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out." Tis not just the testimonies of firefighters or maintainance personnel that were on-site, but also structural engineers, physicists ex-special-forces, architects and demolition techs. Tis definately one of the more credible 9/11 doco's I've seen out there. Another good one is "The WTC Elevator Key" which explains why the freight elevators didn't work and where the service rooms were in relation to the blowouts that were seen along the sides of the buildings as the planes hit and then again when they fell. The placing of ordnance in the service rooms would explain why the sprinkler systems didn't work, conveniently enough. But yeah..I digress. Need I mention the streams of liquid steel pouring out of the sides of the buildings...hehe...yeah...didn't think so...I think you know what I'm getting at...Steel doesn't melt at below 1130 degrees celsius and the burning temp. of Jet-A fuel is only 980 degrees celsius, so yeah...doesn't really add up now does it?



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
Need I mention the streams of liquid steel pouring out of the sides of the buildings


Please show us the lab report that states it was steel....



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
Need I mention the streams of liquid steel pouring out of the sides of the buildings


Please show us the lab report that states it was steel....



That was the most useless post in this thread. Shows a certain level of pure silliness!

P



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Shows a certain level of pure silliness!


No, the silliness is the claim it was molten steel.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


So you know of anything else that was in that building that would flow like that when heated up? You're not another one of those "pics or it didn't happen" types are ya? How about the fact that the ruins of all three buildings smouldered for weeks after they fell? How about the fact that they fell down at damn-near free-fall velocity within their own footprint. How about the fact that if it was the fire that brought them down, why did they not just have a partial collapse? If you have ever been to a foundry or worked as a welder, both of which I have, you would know that molten steel has a look that is very unique. Like lava but smoother and brighter. Your attitude disappoints me to be quite honest.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Okay smartypants what was it then? You seem to throw around alot of hyperbole but I have yet to see you make a point of your own. Let's have it. If it's not steel (which it clearly is) than what was it? Since you're so wise and all I just thought that maybe you would have some insight into the matter. /sarcasm



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I'm sorry but I'm just taken aback that someone in this world who is supposedly pretty well educated would even consider that the official version of events is true. Since you have the benefit of talking to many engineers on said topic, maybe you could explain to me how a building with a solid steel and reinforced concrete core could collapse into it's own footprint at free-fall velocity almost directly through the path of greatest resistance when it is far more likely that, given the damage from the impacts and fires burning, it would have only suffered a partial collapse unless given a little "help" if you get my drift. Do you know what the first three skyscrapers EVER to collapse due to "fire" were? If you don't than maybe you aren't the authority on this matter that you think you are. (Hint: one ends in 1, one ends in 2 and one ends in 7) Just goes to prove...never confuse education with intelligence...no offense and all..just sayin..



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
So you know of anything else that was in that building that would flow like that when heated up?


UPS batteries....


How about the fact that they fell down at damn-near free-fall velocity.


Only WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for a short time, just by watching a video of WTC 1&2 you can clearly see the debris falling at free fall speed, the buildings were collapsing slower.


within their own footprint


That is just a silly claim made by some people, how do you explain the severe damage to all the other buildings?

The 3 World Trade Center, a Marriott hotel, was destroyed during the collapse of the two towers. The three remaining buildings in the WTC plaza were extensively damaged by debris and later were demolished.[125] The Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex was later condemned owing to the uninhabitable toxic conditions inside; it was deconstructed, with work completed in early 2011.[126][127] The Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall at 30 West Broadway was also condemned owing to extensive damage in the attacks and is slated for deconstruction.[128]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Actually, if I may say so, the nature of your breed (the scientific community that is) is to chase the next paycheque. Kinda hard to do that if you've been ostracized by the mainstream scientific community for daring to question the official story. Hate to go off topic, but why exactly do you think that no cancer cure has come to light, Tesla's principle inventions have gone unrecognized (he died broke btw) and we still burn fossil fuels? Scientific progress is driven by the unquenchable thirst for profit and nothing but. Having said that, there are many corporations which stand to profit hugely from the war on terror that stemmed from this attack who would have a vested interest in keeping the official story alive..just sayin...



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Must have been some big bloody batteries to have been flowing out the side of the buildings for pretty much the entire time it took for them to collapse. Also, it may very well have been slightly slower than free-fall, but if you watch the aerial tower (which is connected directly to the core of the building, not the surrounding structures) at the top of Building 2 when it's collapsing, you can clearly see that the tower lurches downwards just before the rest of the top of the building starts to move, indicating that a part of the core (the strongest part of the building, hence the most resistant) either spontaneously disappeared or was removed by some means. Also, do you not think that a building falling down at that velocity would throw out debris at high speeds and at all directions? You still have not addressed why the building did not just shear off at the top and partially collapse, which, through simulations, has been shown to be the most likely form of structural failure caused by what was laid out in the NIST report. You also have not dealt with the issue that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first skyscrapers EVER to collapse due to fire. There have been incidences of buildings burning for days at a time and still standing, so maybe you could clear that one up for me.

Edit: Also just thought I would mention that molten lead does not flow like that, nor does it glow like that when heated up to melting temperature. Ever worked in a place that works with molten lead or done soldering? If you had you would know that molten lead flows silver, not luminescent orange/yellow like steel does. Also thought I would mention that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 707s and that the amount of fuel that could fit in the wing tanks of a 747 would only be about enough to fill an olympic-sized pool, which is nothing compared to the size of the towers themselves. You expect me to believe that that amount of fuel (which only burns up to about 980 degrees C btw) took down both buildings at pretty much the exact same velocity, in precisely the same manner, when both buildings were hit on different floors with differing amounts of fuel on each plane? That's just plain silly to believe something like that in my humble opinion.
edit on 6/6/2013 by xXxinfidelxXx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join