An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support all of the weight above it?

No, no. You need not "explain" that. I know its not true. I understand how things actually work, how things are supported.

Well, until you EXPLAIN THAT I cannot respond.

Do we have to go through the difference between FLOORS and LEVELS again?

psik

I think that you should remember that the floors were supported vertically by vertical columns. The horizontal supports were constructed to withstand lateral (horizontal) forces. Once things begin to collapse, you have extreme vertical stress on horizontal supports. This is not what they are designed to withstand, so naturally they will fail. Unless you know of some way that they could have resisted the weight of a collapsing vertical force, I believe we are running in circles talking about the difference between steel and concrete weight.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
First of all his name isn't Alex Jones

Correct.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

and secondly, everything you just stated is a lie, none of it true.

No, it's quite true. His "independent" analysis, was done by another of the ORIGINAL paper's AUTHORS!!!

It was published in a sham journal (Bentham) that has literally NO peer-review process, other than "Did the check clear? Fine, print it"

In fact, Bentham editors have QUIT over papers being published that did not have their approval, and had never seen.

Not to mention the numerous errors in the paper.
1- The stuff being "tested" was not tested in an inert environment.
2- The stuff produces MORE heat energy than ANY flavor of thermite can produce.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

You are an apologist for the most heinous crime in modern history, what a disgraceful role to be playing.

And you think attacking people personally is going to help your cause? It doesn't.

One of the benefits of being active on several forums is the opportunity to share new resources.
Here are some about the work of Judy Wood, Ph.D., who has a new book, WHERE DID THE
TWIN TOWERS GO? Once again, since this post was authored by Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez,
the signature here is not mine.

BEGIN RODRIQUEZ POST:

The fact of the matter is, there is an overwhelming sum of easily verifiable physical evidence from 9/11, which explosives of any kind do NOT explain. (including thermite, jet fuel, nuclear weapons, etc.)

Furthermore, even the mainstream media has admitted that steel and marble turned to dust, so it is quite bewildering to see you promoting rumors and falsehoods. Why you are promoting rumors and falsehoods does not matter to me, because the point is, you are wrong. The media seems quite confused by the fact that steel and marble were somehow transformed into fine dust, which is quite understandable and amusing:

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Full Clip) | ABC News: www.youtube.com...

Media Acknowledges Steel Turned to Dust on 9/11 (Short Clip) | ABC News : www.youtube.com...

High Definition Clip of WTC Turning to Dust on 9/11 (Super Slow Motion) : www.youtube.com...


You can continue holding unscientific beliefs and spreading unscientific rumors all you want, but the fact of the matter is, your 'beliefs' are not supported by the evidence.

Two great places to see brief summaries of the evidence which must be explained:

1. Dr. Judy Wood's Cliff-Notes Summary of the Evidence: drjudywood.com...
2. 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence: pookzta.blogspot.com...

I hope this information helps you be more accurate in the future, but even if it doesn't, at least I tried to help by sharing some information with ya.

Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M2 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence pookzta.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So it needs to be EXPLAINED to you that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support all of the weight above it?

No, no. You need not "explain" that. I know its not true. I understand how things actually work, how things are supported.

Well, until you EXPLAIN THAT I cannot respond.

Do we have to go through the difference between FLOORS and LEVELS again?

psik

I think that you should remember that the floors were supported vertically by vertical columns. The horizontal supports were constructed to withstand lateral (horizontal) forces. Once things begin to collapse, you have extreme vertical stress on horizontal supports. This is not what they are designed to withstand, so naturally they will fail. Unless you know of some way that they could have resisted the weight of a collapsing vertical force, I believe we are running in circles talking about the difference between steel and concrete weight.

Which horizontal supports are you talking about?

Outside the core there were trusses made of 1 inch thick rebar. There were spandrels connecting the perimeter columns to which the trusses were attached. We are bombarded with that information about the towers.

But there were horizontal beams connecting the 47 columns in the core. I have never seen the the layout specified for those beams. Were they laid out the same on every level? They didn't have to be because the elevator shafts were different lengths and most did not run the full length of the building.

So what happened when beams in the falling core of the north tower hit beams in the stationary portion below in this supposed gravitational collapse? But then we are not told the tons of steel on every level. The greater the weight the stronger it should have been. Lon Waters has a site with Core Columns data but he has nothing on the horizontal beams.

So where is that data?

psik

So, first off, why are you posting it here, without an [ex] tag around it?

Secondly, do you really look at the media for engineering solutions?

That's like calling a plaumber to do cardiovascular surgery.

It slipped my mind to put the externals around it and now that I have returned to do so, my time has run out. Why aren't you responding to the evidence and studies that are linked in this post? What does "media" have to do with anything? It's broadcast footage from 9/11! They were closer to the event than we are now and were confident enough of what they were reporting to put it on the air. I posted this so you would have access to more of her research on the Twin Towers to see if Judy Wood's approach offers explanatory advantages over alternative accounts. That's the point of this thread: to try to figure out how it was done--or at least advance our understanding!

reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by Max1009
That the booms aren't documented on video makes it all very sceptical though, you have to admit, there were quite a few people carrying around cameras or using them right at the moment of the twin tower collapse. If it was a controlled demolition, they must have recorded it.

So what do you call that? a loud fart?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
To all new users or lurkers to this site reading this thread. These theories are out there and have never ever been embraced by the truth community and victims families. These theories have been proven years ago to come from the very people covering up 911. These theories of energy weapons, pods, holograms and video fakery were created to smear and muddy the waters of truth by injecting proven nonsensical theories in forums like this.

Now because this is ATS and most theories are welcomed. Threads like this by the author have been met with much hostility and disgust among truthers and victim's families of 911.

When people and forums are shown the official story is false and fabricated these far-out theories of space beams and holograms pop up. When debunkers get their hats handed to them they refer that " you truthers and your energy weapons...sigh" are a fringe group.

Bottom line. We know players and creators of these theories are purposely smearing the 911 truth movement and forums like this. 99% of 911 investigators have been fighting these theories and making it clear that these people who start and spread these theories are actually connected to the Official story believers.

For example.... I am debunker. I believe the official story and we as debunkers and believers of the official story also believe in child abuse. gay love and white supremacy. Most of us debunkers are in jail right now for child abuse cases but we get internet access and decide to support the official story. ( this is the same method they use on truthers or researchers of 911)

Added: This thread has 4 flags most likely flagged by debunkers again hoping it gets front page coverage as so they tell everyone "Look! Ats users embrace hologram an tv fakery theories, what buffoons!"

edit on 13-2-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Yet Another trapped in the shadow of old paradigms unable to evolve to higher frequencies of the magnetic pole shift.

so sad.

THE THREE STAGES OF TRUTH
It would appear to be an indelible human trait that the 'truth' about all issues goes through three distinct phases known colloquially as "the three stages of truth". During the first stage, the issue goes unnoticed and is ignored. The second stage is characterised by a period of vehement denial. The third stage witnesses the the truth about the issue being recognised as self evident.

Examples of this sort of thing a legion. Thus for example, five hundred years ago contemporary Western (meaning European) society believed that the Earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe and anyone who had the temerity to suggest otherwise was invariably burnt at the stake. It wasn't until the Magellan expedition's circumnavigation of the globe in 1522 that the reality of a round Earth was finally acknowledged as being "self evident".

The reason why 'truth' goes through these three stages is that humans in general are very reluctant to give up their beliefs as to the nature of reality because they have invested a lifetime of expense and effort in arriving at those beliefs. Acknowledging that their perception of reality may no longer be applicable in the light of new evidence usually presents humans with the uncomfortable choice of dispensing with a paradigm that they have become used to - and which has probably worked for them quite satisfactorily to date - in favour of a something new and yet to be properly defined. Few humans have the strength of character to pursue such a course of action as it usually results in considerable personal discomfit associated with a lack of supporting structures around new ideas and a fear of the unknown, not to mention the vociferous ridicule they can expect from their contemporaries towards anything new. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that those who question society's prevailing orthodoxy are by definition dissenters who, by "rocking the boat", tend to threaten the very lifestyle, comfort and income of those around them who hold to the prevailing orthodox position. It is for this reason why dissenters have been relentlessly pursued and persecuted throughout history by their contemporaries.

www.vision.net.au...

Originally posted by hooper

...ever collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11--and, if our research is well-founded, it didn't happen on 9/11 either.

So? This is a very basic form of fallacy. Something supposedly never happened before so it can never happen the first time. You fail to mention that pre-9/11 no building constructed and designed like the towers had ever been subject to the forces they were subjected to on 9/11. And you have no "research".

except aside from the fact the wtc was designed to withstand boeings of similar size impacting, we have a third building WTC7 that collapsed in a free-fall exhibiting classic characteristics of controlled demolition and was not subject to any "force" that wtc1 and 2 were.

Its more than obvious you have an agenda here to obfuscate, deny, and perpetuate ignorance if not just because you find nothing suspect with any aspect of the 3 collapses. I'd give your opinion far more credence if there was any ounce of objective reasoning or an unbiased viewpoint acknowledging points on both sides, yet in every thread its the same towing of the government conspiracy theory line. Can you be any more blatant Hooper?

reply to post by truthseekr1111


I'm pretty sure that every single person who has ever supported the official story has said that it wasn't the impact directly that brought down the towers. It was the impact, the fire, and time. I mean, WTC 7 burned for like 6 or 7 hours with firefighters and everyone being evacuated in a collapse radius because they expected the building to come down.

Also, don't bring up other steel structures that burned. They weren't impacted by a plane AND they had very different designs compared to the towers.

Varemia, Here are 13 data points, where an adequate explanation of the destruction of the Twin Towers has to account for all 13. They are like points on a graph, where the correct plot of the figure has to pass through all of them. Remember, WTC-7 was not hit by any airplane and had only very modest fires, where Larry Silverstein told the "fire commander" there had been so much loss of life that perhaps the best thing to do was to "pull it". If you haven't viewed it before,

www.youtube.com...

1. The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

2. Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

3. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

4. Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

5. If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

6. The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

7. William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

8. Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

9. Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

10. The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

11. Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

12. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

13. Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destoryed by different modes of demolition.

reply to post by Varemia

reply to post by JimFetzer


Well, I was going to address those points one by one and then realized that not one of them was true.

So I guess the response to your proposition is really quite simple, since nothing you proposed is true than none of it need be acconted for.

Done.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

Its more than obvious you have an agenda here to obfuscate, deny, and perpetuate ignorance if not just because you find nothing suspect with any aspect of the 3 collapses. I'd give your opinion far more credence if there was any ounce of objective reasoning or an unbiased viewpoint acknowledging points on both sides, yet in every thread its the same towing of the government conspiracy theory line. Can you be any more blatant Hooper?

Sorry, I am forced to deal only in the real world, ergo, I can find nothing in the conspira-fanatasies with any merit.

The buildings were not designed to withstand the forces they were subject to on 9/11.

Throwing around phrases like "free-fall" is meaningless.

Let any structure burn unchecked and your lucky if it doesn't collapse.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

Sorry, I am forced to deal only in the real world, ergo, I can find nothing in the conspira-fanatasies with any merit.

The buildings were not designed to withstand the forces they were subject to on 9/11.

Throwing around phrases like "free-fall" is meaningless.

Let any structure burn unchecked and your lucky if it doesn't collapse.

Just BELIEVE and you don't need data about the REAL WORLD.

Like all of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core that connected the 47 columns.

psik

Originally posted by hooper

Let any structure burn unchecked and your lucky if it doesn't collapse.

Really? Well, here's quite a few burning skyscrapers that never collapsed:

911research.wtc7.net...

In view of these refutations of your statement, I would say you would be lucky if ANYTHING you said about 9/11 ever turned out to be right.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Just BELIEVE and you don't need data about the REAL WORLD.

Huh? I don't need "data" to know that an apple falls when you drop it. I don't need "data" to know that water flows downhill.

Like all of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core that connected the 47 columns.

So what is it you are doing to gather this information? Have you contacted anyone? What research, besides Google, have you actually performed to satisfy what you believe to be the critical lynch pin proving the "inside job"?

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Why aren't you responding to the evidence and studies that are linked in this post?

I have. You ignore it.

Originally posted by JimFetzer

What does "media" have to do with anything? It's broadcast footage from 9/11! They were closer to the event than we are now and were confident enough of what they were reporting to put it on the air

You're basically claiming that because the media described it that way, than it must be true.

Again, that is the same as asking a plumber to do cardivascular surgery. The plumber is not qualified.

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
except aside from the fact the wtc was designed to withstand boeings of similar size impacting,

Which it did. Notice it didn't collapse right away?

Originally posted by truthseekr1111
we have a third building WTC7 that collapsed in a free-fall exhibiting classic characteristics of controlled demolition and was not subject to any "force" that wtc1 and 2 were.

So, WTC7 didn't catch on fire?

Since, as you claim that it exhibited all of the classic characteristics of a CD, where are the loud sucessive booms, immediatly prior to collapse? Bright flashes of light?

Also, since you claim that free-fall is a classic characteristic of a CD, can you show me another collapse that is a known CD that achieves Free-fall acceleration?

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by hooper

Let any structure burn unchecked and your lucky if it doesn't collapse.

Really? Well, here's quite a few burning skyscrapers that never collapsed:

911research.wtc7.net...

In view of these refutations of your statement, I would say you would be lucky if ANYTHING you said about 9/11 ever turned out to be right.

Well, actually thats 7. They all burned for various periods of time and the fires were fought.

Also, I guess I need to reiterate the basic idea that not all buildings have the same design and performed differently under different circumstances.

I love the "WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane" argument. Do you know what it was hit by? A collapsing skyscraper. The damage is well documented and while the fires are what brought the building down, the damage helped it along and gave it the characteristics it presented.