Explosive News

This is what Leslie Robertson, a chief engineer involved in design and construction of the WTC, has to say about plane impact :-

www.youtube.com...

I would like to see the "multiple" plane impacts allegation substantiated. Leslie Robertson doesn't mention that and, on the face of it, it seems a silly claim. Could any building withstand 5, 10, 50, 100 strikes ? What is multiple ?

Originally posted by seethelight
“debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7"

... and fire caused it collapse.

www.nist.gov...

Cmon say it

Say it.

I dare you , say it.

From NIST , Fires and Phenomena brought down the Towers 7.

WTF does that mean !!!!! Phenomena ??

NIST is a joke

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Sean48]

Originally posted by Alfie1
What is multiple ?

more than 1

easy answer for sure

Hello all,

I have a thought about all the recent goings on around the world, the smoke screen fading and all these professionals coming through with possibly not new evidence but new courage and confidence.

Let me explain my reasoning...

Apart from the Financial industry, the two biggest industries to be hurt the most was the Motor industry and the Building industry (professions of builders, surveyors, ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and estate agents). We all know there is a plethora of evidence about 9/11 that has been pushed aside or at least not been brought forward soon after the time of the event. My thought which I hope you agree is that people were afraid to speak up for fear of retribution, discrediting their names and fear or losing future business (future contracts). So those with well established professions and experience in this industry; kept their mouths shut due to FEAR.

Now closer to ten years later we have the world's biggest economic meltdown in history and the silver lining on the clouds is that it has taking the FEAR away from these professionals; perhaps they worry less now about damaging their name, losing future business when the economic collapse in the building industry has reduced the work to nothing anyway.

So more people now have less to lose and more to gain. We like to think...

My last thought is if the economic collapse was planned, this was all suppose to happen like a game of chess. The next question is how will the opposing side make their next move and how will we all handle the truth being told?

Will we like what we have been fighting for? Would this lead us to a future war (WWIII). Is this the grand plan to reduce global population? Because believe me. When I find out I have been betrayed and I know the whole truth, I find it hard not to forgive so easily. Do you think the families of the victims from 9/11, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, IRAN, EUROPE; the people in the Emergency services, Military personnell, all the suspected terrorist (which I believe are innocent people being bullied and falsely accused - I mean YOU and I losing our liberal rights). Will these people feel better for knowing the truth?

I hope this is not part of the GRAND plan we all discuss on ATS, I hope we can maturely handle the truth and be given the ability to bring those to justice without spilling more BLOOD. I look on the world today as everyone as my Brother and Sister and we all have to share responsibility for our future actions. Let us bring peace to our beautiful planet and learn to respect everything we share.

Kindest regards,
E.T

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by butcherguy

 

the fact remains the building was designed to withstand plane crashes.

To state that something is "designed to" do x y z means very little in the face of actual testing. Diapers are designed not to leak. Matches are designed to be safe. Software is designed not to crash.

While buildings may be designed not to collapse under impact from an airplane, the methodology for designing and constructing buildings is not test driven. Test driven methodology would require that buildings are routinely pounded by airplanes, or at least a reasonable proxy, maybe something less costly, to test the claims. Where do those tests take place? as far as I know assumptions as to the resilience of a building in the event of an airplane crash are extrapolated from testing of the materials themselves, and rest upon the assumptions that the construction is carried out as the engineer intended.

Instead, buildings are designed to codes that are only updated when actual accidents take place. The process amounts to the same, but it is much slower and there is room for error. It is a minor miracle that random accident's don't happen more often, such as the spontaneous collapse of ceiling panels in tunnels in Boston (which were, as you guessed it, designed not to fall), and is a testament to the resilience of the engineering process in the face of the relative inconsistency in work ethic among humans, including those that have to actually lay the bricks and put rivets.

I don't know what brought down building 7. I am very curious, and I don't think that the study done was sufficient to explain it well. There are media reports that don't get talked about much longer, as the video posted by ancient_wisdom shows. And there have been mysterious suicides in association with it. I have every reason to suspect that covert efforts in association to the event could have taken place. Whether those efforts were to retrieve sensitive materials or conceal some information, etc, it is easy to speculate on possible reasons. It would be foolish not to expect some presence by intelligence agencies in any of those buildings, they are everywhere where it matters. I think this alone could be enough to make the entire aftermath of the events appear as fishy as it did, without necessarily resorting to a controlled demolition theory.

But as for the towers, with or without a collapse, the plane collision and extensive fires would have been enough to render the buildings useless anyway, and to prompt the response that the Bush administration took.

Would I buy a theory of controlled demolition? only if the evidence presented was first hand and verifiable, but so far I haven't been presented with this evidence. The evidence I have been presented is the type of evidence that requires one assumes control demolition and then find circumstantial support for it. The problem with this is that any of various ridiculous theories can be proven this way.

As far as the collapse rate of building 7, I find that to be inconclusive, the building appears to fall at free fall rate during the first 3 seconds, but it depends on what the precise moment of "start" is defined. At best it is consistent with a massive explosion. Which may or may not have been intentional.

-rrr

reply to post by Monts


What about the tens of thousands of engineers and architects who have NO problem with the OS.

reply to post by Alfie1


Multiple means more than one.

Meaning if the Empire State Building can take a direct hit from a B-52 bomber, why wouldn't the World Trade Center's, built many years later with newer technology, be able to withstand 2 airplane strikes.

I don't think the engineer was referring to two planes crashing into the same building at one time. I think he was making a reference to crashes that were years apart. In that, if a plane hit the building, it would be safe to keep using the building. It wouldn't have to be torn down after the first strike.

reply to post by drock905


I'd say they probably don't have much of an interest or haven't examined the evidence.

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by seethelight

 

it is a relevant fact that buildings do not collapse from plane damage, 9/11 is the only exception to the rule.

the fires were isolated...sigh, didn't you know?

it did collapse at free fall speed

www.911blogger.com... therefore every time you say it wasn't you are the liar.

do you have a link debunking the mossad claim?

MSM is owned by six major networks, fact. And they are all pro-establishment (pro federal reserve, pro-Israel, pro-OS 9/11).

You ought to be friends with those jokers on the MSM.

so, you are a liberal that agrees with Bush 100 percent on the issue of 9/11. that seems a bit odd. And if you really believe in the OS, where's Osama Bin Laden? And why aren't you in Afghanistan tracking down al Qaeda? Come on, another 9/11 is just around the corner (since they need to invade Iran, but I guess you wouldn't believe that anyways.)

[edit on 24-2-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

I assume you have access to the internet. Go watch a video of an implosion.

It looks similar, but not the same.

Once again, you've confused similar and the same.

As far as your youtube video is concerned, you don't understand why the guy who commented on it thinks 5.4 seconds is arbitrary.

And yet, you accept it as truth.

It wasn't a free fall and that one video is HARDLY proof. Hardly even close to proof. AND it's ONLY about WTC7...

So someone reading into something they think is important about one of three buildings isn't proof.

You claim MSM is owned by "six networks", which of them owns the Washington Times?

As for the Israelis, search ATS, it's been debunked on here repeatedly.

If you can't figure out how to do that I'll help.

And BTW, those Israelis are now SUING for abuse. Hardly the actions of people that disappeared into Israel without a trace.

You think I agree with Bush 100% about what happened on 9/11, but of course you don't ACTUALLY know what I believe.

I certainly believe that no Demo happened and that the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed.

That's about all I agree with Bush on though.

I suppose I could find something Bush said that you agreed with and then paint your entire worldview, but that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

I'm not one for joining the military and certainly not one for shooting people... not sure why you assume that believing that buildings didn't fall at free fall = I should be in Afghanistan.

reply to post by rickyrrr


this thread is about engineers questioning the OS, which even the designers of the buildings are on record saying the building was designed in theory to handle a 707. While theory does not always equate to practice, it still remains a fact that 9/11 is the exception to the rule that when buildings get hit by planes, they usually do not collapse, just like in Austin, Texas. The plane was hit by a plane, was on fire for a while, and suffered extreme damage relative to the size of the building, yet no collapse. Doesn't that strike you as odd? On 9/11, three buildings collapse due to 2 plane crashes?

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
reply to post by seethelight

 

it is a relevant fact that buildings do not collapse from plane damage, 9/11 is the only exception to the rule.

Do you have a long list of 110 story buildings that have been hit by jetliners that makes your 'fact' relevant?

reply to post by seethelight


hey

mr i cant type without

hitting the enter button

900 friggin times,

if WTC building 7 Wasnt hit

by any plane

then why the hell

did it fall down?

thank you

for missing the obvious

and taking nearly a football field's length of thread space

to do so!!

reply to post by Sean48


Phenomenon:

a remarkable development

Phenomena:

More than one remarkable development


I suppose you don't find two skyscrapers, standing next to each other, both being hit by airliners, essentially at the same time, to be remarkable.

Most people do.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Sean48

 

Phenomenon:

a remarkable development

Phenomena:

More than one remarkable development


I suppose you don't find two skyscrapers, standing next to each other, both being hit by airliners, essentially at the same time, to be remarkable.

Most people do.

Try to keep up.

It was regarding Building 7.

How many planes hit that building .

it was hit by Phenomona

reply to post by LurkerMan


Sorry if I type in a way that's easy to read.

What the hell... nothing like an attack on my STYLE to shut me up huh?

WTC7 collapsed because it burned for 7 hours and it's steel structured was weakened to the point where it couldn't support it's weight.

Originally posted by seethelight


What the hell... nothing like an attack on my STYLE to shut me up huh?

WTC7 collapsed because it burned for 7 hours and it's steel structured was weakened to the point where it couldn't support it's weight.

WRONG

Fire and Phenomona brought down 7

If it was just fires, they would have to tear down every steel building in
the USA.

So ..ENTER .. Phenomona

Thermite is powdered rust and powdered aluminum.

Now where do you suppose traces of those two things could come from in a big steel and concrete skyscraper that was clad in aluminum sheets?

And people think it is as alien as finding a fully staffed McDonald's on Pluto.

I would be really worried if you could find zero traces of rust and aluminum in the debris. I have even heard it was an exotic blend because of gypsum....hmm, bet you can find gypsum in concrete:

Cement
Portland cement is the most common type of cement in general usage. It is a basic ingredient of concrete, mortar, and plaster. English masonry worker Joseph Aspdin patented Portland cement in 1824; it was named because of its similarity in colour to Portland limestone, quarried from the English Isle of Portland and used extensively in London architecture. It consists of a mixture of oxides of calcium, silicon and aluminium. Portland cement and similar materials are made by heating limestone (a source of calcium) with clay, and grinding this product (called clinker) with a source of sulfate (most commonly gypsum). The manufacture of Portland cement creates about 5 percent of human CO2 emissions.

Or, I don't know, maybe from Drywall. Since drywall is nothing more than gypsum plaster between two sheets of paper and then kiln dried. Pretty easy to break and grinds to a choking powder pretty easily.

Originally posted by eclectic.thoughts
Hello all,

I have a thought about all the recent goings on around the world, the smoke screen fading and all these professionals coming through with possibly not new evidence but new courage and confidence.

Let me explain my reasoning...

Apart from the Financial industry, the two biggest industries to be hurt the most was the Motor industry and the Building industry (professions of builders, surveyors, ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS and estate agents). We all know there is a plethora of evidence about 9/11 that has been pushed aside or at least not been brought forward soon after the time of the event. My thought which I hope you agree is that people were afraid to speak up for fear of retribution, discrediting their names and fear or losing future business (future contracts). So those with well established professions and experience in this industry; kept their mouths shut due to FEAR.

Beautiful post et.....

I couldn't agree more...


Mod Note: One Line and Short Posts – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Wed Feb 24 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by seethelight


except putting a line break after nearly every pause in your draft isnt easy to read.

Kinda Like Poeple Who Think Its Cool To Capitalize Every Word They Type. "Oh But Its So Much Easier To Reedz!11"

reply to post by seethelight


I never said it was an implosion, it was an explosion, which is why steel was propelled outwards.

It looks similar to a controlled demolition, 1000 engineers seem to agree!

That video was taken down, here is a new one www.youtube.com...

As I said, I do not take anything as 100 percent absolute, but I do know what I see. So you are trying to say that the israelis are suing, therefore they were not part of the crime. But if this really was a conspiracy they would sue in order to conceal their identity. I can tolerate a few key points being doubted, but how is it that you are so blind to the simple false flag scam that has led to an uninterrupted war in Iraq and Afghanistan? And yet, the government can not tolerate one iota of doubt in any of its nonsensical claims about Bin Laden or al Qaeda. If you want to sacrifice your life to defend the global empire, fine by me, but don't expect me to do the same, and don't expect me to ever justify a war based on doubtful evidence and outright lies.