It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LaBTop
They "discovered" with their expensive software, also at last, teeth-grindingly, a period of 2.25 seconds, of even closer to precise free fall acceleration, than David Chandler came up with,
While real free fall calculations try to find periods in which the 9.8 meters PER second PER second ACCELERATION rate for G is reached, to prove if there are short or long periods of real free fall acceleration in any collapse SEQUENCE.
You now dare to post again 9:59 minutes of this kind of childish "debunking" rubbish, while you have been offered multiple times in this thread alone already, the reason why David Chandler is right, and why it is accepted by every scientist on the globe already for all these years since 2008, except by real nut-jobs like this guy.
* 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.
* 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.
* 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.
* 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.
* 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.
* 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.
Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert
Brent Blanchard: If I wanted to have the least amount of detection and of physical evidence I would have used a radio wireless frequency detonator, but there's still no way to wire all those columns together without using any wire. Even with a wireless detonator you would still have to tie these columns together. And the biggest point is still that you need access to those columns. There are only two ways you can blast such a thick steel H-beam. One is to bulk load it, which means you take a big load of explosives and you just duct tape it or attach it to the beams and you just let it rip and obliterate the beam. The second way, which is what happens with true controlled demolitions, is that you cut through the flanges and you attached the charges to a point where the flanges are pre-cut and then you finish the job with the explosives.
Those are really the only two ways to cause a beam of that size to fail. Now you have to magnify that times dozens, if not hundreds, of beams. Because if you shoot ten of those nothing is going to happen, the building won't fail. You have to shoot many more than that, because the weight is distributed around that structure at the core and around the perimeter. Both methods would be extremely noticeable to the naked eye.
Furthermore, if you were going to bulk load the columns, you would have not only seen the fireball where the plane hit but also huge fireballs everywhere these explosives detonate, and nothing of the sort was seen.
Brent Blanchard: No. And there is no evidence there was molten steel. The way they phrase that question is fundamentally wrong and that's why it reaches wrong conclusions every time. There were molten materials, there were very hot burning materials, but there's no evidence that any of those materials were steel. It is much more likely that they were aluminum, or copper, or composite materials.
Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews. My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs.
We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites. Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.
This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.
With all due respect sir, you seem to IGNORE the evidence that LabB has presented. You claim there is no evidence when in fact it is abundant.
Brent Blanchard: Demolition Expert
Brent Blanchard: One thing I would add is that there are vibration recordings from the site. The seismograph readings that were recorded on 9/11, as they are every day worldwide, recorded the impacts of the planes and the actual collapses of the structures. You can see in those waveforms and in that data that there was no sudden catalyst at 10:06 or any other time; there was no explosive event. So in order for an explosive detonation to be hidden, folks at those laboratories, actual scientists at Columbia University and other places, would also have needed to be part of the conspiracy.
In the end there is absolutely no scientific evidence that there were explosions in any of those three buildings, and that means a lot to me.
Van Romero: Demolition Expert
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory
The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.
Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse
"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.
The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."
The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse
Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001
As on the other thread, it appears you labor under the delusion that our mainstream media has integrity and practices honest truth-seeking journalism.
The closer one examines the official story the more it fails.
A person struggling under certain delusions does not realize he is under delusions. That's rather the point. You actually believe what the mainstream media has to say, without any questions asked. I am quite the opposite.
The mainstream media is utterly corrupt and without conscience. It does not know right from wrong, and is far more interested in advancing an agenda, something other than the truth.
originally posted by: drommelsboef
This is also worth a read
Honestly? A video of flames in one corner of one floor proves that fire brought the building down? The video does not show a building "engulfed" in flames as so eloquently put by the Daily Mail, it shows what everyone already knew...random fires on a couple of floors.
Firefighter on WTC 7
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?)
Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess."
- Lieutenant William Ryan