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.

 

Former FDNY Firefighter, Rudy Dent: "Incontrovertible fact (WTC) buildings were brought down."

page: 10
118
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: andr3w68

Well you have people called STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS many THOUSANDS of them worldwide yet you dont see them jumping to claim it was demolished.

I have very regular contact with people like that due to my job and have NEVER heard one back that theory.


Actually you do. Google Architechts and Engeineers for 9/11 Truth. There are thousands of them.



edit on 5-6-2014 by Emerys because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Emerys

Thank you for posting that Emerys.

It ties in directly to my personal experience with the gentleman I have described above.

The excruciating conflict evident in my friend's retelling of the official story is unique to his position.

This was the guy who's picture has been shown around the world as he directs the Sikorsky Skycrane in with the final piece of the worlds tallest structure, the CN Tower in Toronto. That was when he was a young Iromworker and Union man. The iconic photo was republished on the turn of the last century as one of the top images of the twentieth Century.

He joined the management team after that for the building of Toronto's retracting roof stadium and became the President of the biggest construction company in Canada, Dominion Bridge. His final 'official' job after that was as President of CANRON, the Canadian version of STELCO, and was as much about politics as it was industry.

After retiring, due to his high regard by both blue and white collars, he became THE arbitrator between the Unions and the Corporations they work for.

This was the top guy in the all of the Heavy Construction Industry in Canada.

Of course he would have been the obvious choice to "get the word out". No one else had the trust of both management and unions.

I had breakfast with him the day he went missing. I know he anguished to be forced to repeat a falsehood. This was a man that looked you in the eye when he was telling you something. When he initiated the discussion of WTC7 on board his yacht that day, his eyes were everywhere but.

RIP Paul.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Emerys

About 1500 out of how many worldwide???? OH and Architects don't really do structural load calculations they happen to be some of the best customers for STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS!!!



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DarthFazer

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Interesting that there have been no responses yet, but three flags on this.

I don't believe what this man is saying is true. There have been many books out that have debunked these conspiracy theories on 9/11.



There are also books out that prove without a doubt 9-11 was an inside job. Common sense and rules of science say what happened was impossible hence it is all a lie on behalf of the official explanation. I question your logic and reasoning, people have infact responded to this thread.

Tell me fire can melt iron beams.

Not possible apply occams razor , still not possible.

Do you have a bridge and swamp land in florida for sale ?

Well no need for demolition teams to demolish buildings anymore because now all we have to do is start fires and stand back to wait for a collapse



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008

And guess what, it was falling onto thousands of pounds of undamaged material would damage the falling materiel.
We all know newtons 3rd law and that does not change that day, or well some people think it did.
But we see the top section just fall straight down, nothing changes it's speed or direction, how is that possible if it is falling onto itself? What is causing the core to just give way?
Why does the core not resist anything? Was that being held up by the trusses and exo as well?
Or is the core from the top section just obliterating the core below the whole way down?


The problem is people like yourself always go back to newton and state the 3rd law lets re cap for those
not familiar with it.

Third Law : When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Or For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The thing is YOU guys look at this the wrong way lets look at the North Tower now that was hit first mid elevation and higher up than the South Tower.

It fell after the South Tower because there was a SMALLER LOAD above the impact point! The core steelwork was also lighter higher up the building.

The South Tower fell first although it was hit second it had a LARGER LOAD (more floors ) above the impact point , also it was hit more off centre and when the collapse started to toppled towards that area.

Now the floorslabs which were supported by the trusses which were secured to the outer wall and the core on cleats were the same on every floor except the service floors.

The floorslab connections had only to support that slabs weight plus the office equipment staff etc plus a safety margin.

Now this is the IMPORTANT part when the collapsing MASS IMPACTS the floorslab/core area below it's ONLY THE CONNECTIONS SUPPORTING THAT SLAB THAT RESISTS THE BULK OF THE IMPACT FORCES the core is a far smaller target area than the floorslab.

In the North Tower you have an impact between the 92-98 floor so even saying the 98th you have 12 floors above falling each 4.5" thick slab would have at least 800+ tons of concrete plus steel,services, furniture etc etc.

YOU people always look at as 12 floors destroying the rest it's not it's 12 destroy one then 12+1 destroying 1 then 12+1+1 destroying one we can see pictures online of sheared cleats and bolts which fixed the trusses to the walls.

The South Tower was worse being hit between the 78-84 floor so far more floors above the imapct zone.

Here is a link to an imapct force calculater

Impact Force Calculator

Stick in a 10kg mass use the height between floors of the towers as the drop distance now we cant put in a stopping distance as the falling mass wasn't stopped but use the bolt dia about 15mm or the cleat thickness about 25mm (1 inch) they were sherared.

Now once you have done that sit back and be amazed at the loads generated!!! from 10kg now imagine 10's of thousands of kg impacting then you won't be surprised how the buildings ripped themselves apart!

Now that covers the Towers, WTC7 was impacted in a couple of locations the fires are documented as burning for at least 5 hours unless you are calling the NYFD liars, the total collapse time was greater than 7 seconds and the building didn't fall down straight and can be seen in pictures after collapse were the elevation opposite the damaged elevation fell ON TOP of the damaged elevation!
edit on 5-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BilboBaggins3

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: VoxVirtus
a reply to: andr3w68

He lacks the years of schooling that it takes to get a degree in engineering. Like the people who say that this was MOST LIKELY not a controlled demolition.

You can't say "OH, he was there, so that makes him infallible in his testimony."

I respect him for his service to the public, and this man is braver that 99% of the population. But I don't think he knows what he is talking about.


But within half an hour or so the MSM was quoting the famous Harley guy that was supposedly just a citizen on the street.

He took the time to explain the "Pancake Theory" to us peons on National news and on every channel.
And I ask this......What were his qualifications that day?

Regards, Iwinder


Interesting how that narrative/lie was conveniently planted in everyone's mind so early on by someone who just knew how it all came down!


agreed for sure it was a real magic show that morning, slight of hand all presented nice and neat by our friends in the MSM industry.
I am ashamed to say this but on that morning as I watched the "Show" I hung on his every word like it was gospel.
This is the Harley guy we are talking about.
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 5-6-2014 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




Now this is the IMPORTANT part when the collapsing MASS IMPACTS the floorslab/core area below it's ONLY THE CONNECTIONS SUPPORTING THAT SLAB THAT RESISTS THE BULK OF THE IMPACT FORCES the core is a far smaller target area than the floorslab.


Ok...So what destroyed the cores then?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Ok...So what destroyed the cores then?


As the floors collapsed they lost their support,so they fell. Or did you expect it to remain standing?



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Uh-Huh....just peeled open like a banana skin? And all the cross bracing between the core columns what happened to that? To answer your question, yes. I would expect it to remain standing, at least for a short time, and then maybe topple to one side.......or are you referring to Bazant's ridiculous "piledriver" theory?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: signalfire

Dear signalfire,

Thanks for writing, you are correct that in the 9/11 forum, I say that a lot.

In the immortal words of somebody or other, "Whoaaa, man. Chill out, dude."


Maybe stick to your beach, you'll be happier there. You seem like a good sort of chap but I wonder why you bother asking your questions, if you can't be bothered to look into it for yourself and come to your own conclusions?

I've got two reasons for denying personal knowledge of the subject and asking questions.

1.) I really don't know, and I'm looking for answers. I don't have infinite time and I'm not prepared to go down every "rabbit hole of massive proportions." If I followed that logic to it's extreme, I could study things until I was 90, then come to ATS and say "I've nothing to ask, I know everything."

Further, it occasionally points out an issue that had been neglected in the discussion, a fresh pair of eyes, so to speak.

2.) The people who have studied this at some length have formed their opinions. Posters can (and do) shout at each other all day long with no effect other than getting the whole forum shut down for a while.

I would have thought it would have dawned on people here, that you have to try to persuade the people who are undecided, and poorly informed on this issue. People, in short, like me.

I'm an ideal test subject, I'm starting with a very slight leaning towards the government story. Not that I agree with it, because I'm not completely sure what their story is, but because the marshaled a whole lot of people to look at it. But I could change my mind in a flash.


We're all here trying to parse it out,
Forgive me, but it seems the main occupation is to tell other posters that they're blind if they can't see it, it's obvious and incontrovertible, endlessly coming up with new bits of information and going back to the "it's incontrovertible " cycle.

You've persuaded me that this subject is still worth discussing. If the group's advice is that I go explore the issue on my own until I'm fully up to speed before I come back in, I can do that.

I can, but I won't.

With respect,
Charles1952


Over 8000 posts in three years? You've got plenty of time to look into it yourself, from all the numerous sources the rest of us have looked at, books, movies, documentaries, original news footage and witness statements. And yet you claim you're not even sure of the details of the government's hilarious, if highly flawed, story?

And there is no 'group' to give you advice. We're all sovereign individuals in different countries posting on a topic that interests us, and that we also find extremely important to solve as the puzzle it is. But someone repeatedly showing up and saying, 'I don't understand, I can't be bothered to look into it myself, please explain it to me' is like having some little kid tugging on your apron saying 'why, why, why'? all day long. Why are you perennially perplexed when you have immediate access to the entirety of human knowledge, except for maybe the Library of Alexandria and some obscure languages?

Maybe you could do that 'learn everything thing' until you're 90, and then come back and do an AMA....



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




YOU people always look at as 12 floors destroying the rest it's not it's 12 destroy one then 12+1 destroying 1 then 12+1+1 destroying one we can see pictures online of sheared cleats and bolts which fixed the trusses to the walls.


Yes, I understand that 12 floors will destroy 1, at the same time that 1 floor will do damage to the falling 12, it has to.
Or are you denying that?
Cause what you are telling me is that all it would take is 2 floors to fail and the entire building would come down in the same fashion we saw on 911.
We would just see 2+1+1 and so one, correct?
Standing death trap that is FILLED with asbestos that larry decided would be a great investment in. No way he did any type of research into the building.
And again, what happened to the core

And yes wtc 7 had fires, but nothing that could be seen.
No one SAW them burn for 5 hours uncontrollably
I am not calling all of the NYFD a liar, just the few that decided to make the organization push that story and that is not the boots on the ground guys.
They were to busy telling everyone they heard/felt explosions everywhere, or are they liars?

Also, with all of your structural engineering exp.
Please explain what created the free fall, i missed it in your post
Also the global and unified collapse please



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

The problem with the tower floors was the fact they could drop internally within the structure.

The flooslab impacted could only resist the impact up to the point that the cleats/bolts would absorb the load.

i take it like the rest of the people I have asked to try the impact calculator you haven't like the rest I wonder why.

As for the fires in WTC 7 there are plenty of pictures showing the fires even video.

As for the disingeniuos mob at Architects for the truth the internal steelwork failed the penthouse collapsed in the building kinked on the way down and fell TOWARDS the damaged elevation so the 7 second collape is BS.

As for explosions when large structural components fail guess what they make a lot of noise having experience testing building components sometimes to destruction I have a good idea!!!!
edit on 6-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes there is pictures of fires in the windows, I will not say there is not.
That is not proof that fires burnt for 5 hours uncontrollably, especially when nist says that the fires that did the tower in took place out of sight, so again, who saw those raging infernos that cause the 1 failure that collapsed the entire building?
The tower did knick for a second yes, and then it falls globally and unified. With no resistances for 2.3 seconds of the collapse.
What allowed for the 2.3 second free fall why was there NO resistance AT ALL for those 2.3 seconds?

And for the third time, what happened to the core's of 1 and 2??
And why does the 12 floors not get damaged by any of the undamaged floors? Another question you avoided
You said it is 12 and then continually +1, where is the minus is that equation?
Or was it maintaining the same force the whole way down.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

And are you agreeing that all it would take was 2 floors to fail and we would see the same result that we did on 9/11?



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




The problem with the tower floors was the fact they could drop internally within the structure.


how???
and WHY would they...


and....no floors within the core to drop....just 47 continuous, vertical support box columns with an abundance of cross, lateral, and diagonal bracing throughout.....steel touching steel from the hat truss to the bedrock.
all the landings, stairways and elevators all go in between this continuous vertical support. Even a complete collapse of the floor supports would in NO WAY lead to a 'collapse' of the core columns. There is no 'crush down' mechanism that can act on them. The floor truss assemblies can only exert a minimal lateral force on the core....then there is the damping system built into the truss assemblies for lateral sway in high winds..





The flooslab impacted could only resist the impact up to the point that the cleats/bolts would absorb the load.


hence....pancakes for breakfast.

PROVE that fantasy even occurred....ALL steel framed buildings are built the SAME way.....load bearing continuous steel vertical support with NON load bearing long span trusses...the standard of steel framed construction...and yet this "phenomenon" is only privy to 9-11...




I have asked to try the impact calculator you haven't like the rest I wonder why.


oh yes...and WHERE is yours??????

oh please provide a link to your engineering report of this 'supposed' gravitational collapse, [pancake], that contains the mass distribution information to show how it got around the conservation of momentum to come down so fast?





As for the fires in WTC 7 there are plenty of pictures showing the fires even video.



oh yes....mostly the SAME 10 to 15 SECOND shot, from different angles....WHERE is the fire at the time of collapse???

where is the fire to effect the perimeter vertical support the facade is ATTACHED to where 2005 NIST measured the GLOBAL, [= symmetrical = encompassing ALL], UNIFIED, [ = moving as one = a single unit], acceleration equal to gravity that they found occurred for 105 vertical feet, constant downward acceleration from 1.75 SECONDS, [when we see the kink form] to 4.0 s...an interval of collapse where ALL science states.....the building is NOT assisting in making the path it falls into.

I guess that is why 2008 NIST hypothesized new science did this huh.......cause ALL OTHER taught science states it's IMPOSSIBLE!



"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

so tell me how FIRE does this BEFORE 1.74 seconds.....tell me how fire the 2005 NIST can't even see...


NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


...accomplished all that work BEFORE 1.74 seconds.

as I just said, the facade is a non load bearing cosmetic application attached to the perimeter columns. , it can't support itself let alone anything else.....what effects those columns to REMOVED them to allow global unified acceleration across the board for that 2.3 seconds?????
we see it's not fire.





As for the disingeniuos mob at Architects for the truth the internal steelwork failed the penthouse


and how does one know this when NO ONE looked at any structural member in WTC7 in which to HYPOTHESIZE a damn thing?


NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"






As for explosions when large structural components fail guess what they make a lot of noise


lol...oh yea, creates such a compressive force, it's knocks people over...

how bout when it occurs before they see it???


FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
After a while, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide.

LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".


even after the 2 to 3 second delay in travel it takes for the sound to reach them...they can STILL look up to see it start BEFORE it makes the noise that gets their attention.

since the 2005 NIST did NOT test during this scientific investigation for explosives or accelerates, HOW do they give an OFFICIAL CLAIM stemming from this investigation that "NONE were there"?

they watch UTUBE!!!!!!!



[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.


WOW!!!...none the ENTIRE day based on 26 SECONDS of collapse video that have no sound.......how much noise do 'accelerants' make????



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008





Stick in a 10kg mass use the height between floors of the towers as the drop distance



in the REAL world...

at NO POINT in these tower collapses is these an interval of free fall to GET THINGS MOVING!!!!!

2005 NIST scientific investigation found there are still 240 intact FIREPROOFED vertical support on each tower impact floor RESISTING.......just as designed to do...and back to the reason we are HERE......NO supporting evidence the fires present ALLOWED collapse to ensue.


yet we see and SCIENTIFICALLY find that tipping top, falling in TWO direction as soon as there is movement...



NIST 1-3, 6.8.7 "at the moment of collapse of WTC2 the top portion of the building was found to have moved to the west as it tilted to the southeast".


answer this.....The upper mass has shifted 22 degrees off center, so HOW can it possibly impart an EQUAL force on the opposite side of the building when it's toppling over to ONE side?

it can't.......but we see it did huh.

after the dust clears that is.......so, the OS claims that 'TIPPING TOP' is crushing all below huh.....



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Again, what do melted beams have to do with the WTC - or do you think there were melted beams there?


as I posted, FEMA did.......so it is a little pathetic to LIE and attempt to push this on me as a ATTEMPT to discredit my posts......

but that is what you people here lying must do.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
as I posted, FEMA did


No, wrong again, they said there was eutectic reactions that caused intergranular melting, not melted beams....



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I wonder how much it would cost to build a scaled replica of the elements of 911 (Planes, WTC and Aviation fuel) for testing.
If every 911 truthseeker would contribute $10 I think there would be enough cash.

Until a similar scenario is physically tested we wont get any answers beyond computer simulations/load calculations.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hgfbob
as I posted, FEMA did


No, wrong again, they said there was eutectic reactions that caused intergranular melting, not melted beams....


What do you think was melting? Typewriters?




top topics



 
118
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join