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.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
Shortly before the building collapsed, it is claimed he asked to authorize a CD. It takes months to set a CD to fall correctly and supposedly it was done "shortly" before it fell???? IMPOSSIBLE.
Who says it was done 'shortly' before it fell
(by 'shortly' I'm assuming you mean on the same day, presumably after WTC7 became damaged from falling derby). I certainly don't think it could have been done in that short space of time, which suggests foreknowledge.
Nobody saw thousands of personnel zipping in and out of the building with massive amounts of explosives? vehicles?.
Apparently not. But does that disprove a controlled demolition? Nope.edit on 10-10-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123
so you dont bother to answer my question then ...did you bother to read any of the reports i gave you
peole see right through you...i see four qoute pastes with out any...not one...not a single bit of added info...on your behalf...
so you can take a hike...and when you actually post something that counters then you might be worth countering.edit on 023131p://f42Sunday by plube because: a word change
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Sorry I missed your question. I always TRY to answer all reasonable questions posted to me. Could you repost your question? Again sorry for missing it !
The reality is that it's not reasonable to speculate that thousands of trained personnel with literally tons of equipment, went into a building that was going to collapse in the first place to make it....ehem, collapse.
Or that the building was never rigged in the first place.
speculate that thousands of trained personnel
Explosive demolition is the preferred method for safely and efficiently demolishing larger structures
....a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see.
The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world.
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls.
Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories.
Next, construction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
Sorry I missed your question. I always TRY to answer all reasonable questions posted to me. Could you repost your question? Again sorry for missing it !
Why don't you take the time to review the thread yourself....
Originally posted by Nathan-D
Allow me to retort. To use your own words, the reality is it's not reasonable to speculate that WTC7 collapsed through itself
at freefall acceleration
As NIST admit themselves, freefall can only occur if there are "no structural components underneath the falling section of the building", which means all structural components must have been synchronistically removed within a split second of one another - all 25 core columns and 58 perimeter columns (on those floors) - suddenly gone. Not gradually weakened by office fire. But gone. Suddenly. It's hard to imagine that fire could do that. And if it could, I would want to see some evidence, as opposed to unverified computer models which don't even bare any resemblance to the collapse of WTC7 itself.
speculate that thousands of trained personnel
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123
just spend a minute to watch WTC7 collapse next to a classic controlled demolition collapse....they are identical.
The NIST report is a sham...i think you are aware of this, but are more interested in presenting fodder to muddy the waters.
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123
Common sense is common sense. Why don't you find an example of a building collapsing in that manner that 'isn't' a controlled demolition? The more I watch your posts, the more it seems your agenda is other than a search for the truth.
It didn't
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by jfj123
Common sense is common sense. Why don't you find an example of a building collapsing in that manner that 'isn't' a controlled demolition? The more I watch your posts, the more it seems your agenda is other than a search for the truth.
Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by jfj123
It didn't
This is lifted from NIST's own website:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.
They admit gravitational acceleration (free fall) during stage 2 of the collapse between 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds which is 2.25 seconds, which equates to around 8 floors. You posted this earlier but appeared to misunderstand it.
How many times has it been repeated that there have NEVER been conditions like 9/11 before or since? .
Originally posted by jambatrumpet
How many times has it been repeated that there have NEVER been conditions like 9/11 before or since? .
Ya, right. There has NEVER been a burning building before 911 like building 7 (not hit by a plane, so not the 'anomaly' you claim it to be)..Just find me ONE example of a burning building collapsing in that manner.