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: 11
118
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




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


as anyone trying to defend the official story....you're WRONG AGAIN!


The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.


melted steel that is NOT suppose to be there, and the one thing they don't do is to investigate an origin.

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the overwhelming presence of sulfur"....


where did it come from????

did it disassociate itself from the other elements of wallboard,[and only the sulfur], to magically mix with the steel to form this sulfur-rich liquid that penetrated the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion?




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Hi All been away will answer recent replies later tonight.

For those on here that cant understand a progressive collapse here we go.


Progressive Collapse


In Bailey's Crossroads, VA, a large apartment complex called Skyline Plaza was under construction. Workers were busy pouring concrete on an apartment building in the complex and at 2:30pm on March 2, 1973, a large progressive collapse occurred in the center of the building, collapsing each floor from the top down. The root cause of the problem is said to be due to the premature removal of forms and shoring for slabs in the vicinity and specific columns on the 23rd floor. Four key concrete columns along with the concrete slab did not reach their desired strength and failed, causing the floor above to collapse onto the floor below, bringing a large center portion of the structure to the ground.


One floor failed dropped on another that failed this continued till ground level.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




those on here that cant understand a progressive collapse here we go


including you.....[shakes head]

why are you linking to a gutted building????...from the words..."progressive collapse"?

lol....WHAT does that do for ya.....

and then you proceed to describe a 'construction accident'?....AGAIN, what does that do for ya???????

you seem to be mistaken.....9-11 was GLOBAL collapse x3

all three building COMPLETELY collapsed from little initial damage and no supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT assisted......lol...again, what doers pathetically pointing to that building do for ya....no really!!!!!



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

On mobile just now I dont think you are as dumb as you make out to be but your arrogance seems 100% genuine!



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: _BoneZ_

If this guy is saying it's a false flag, and that it was brought down on purpose, how can anyone who wasn't there still argue that it wasn't. This is a man who has been trained in fighting fires saying that the fires in that building were not enough to bring it down. ITS SO OBVIOUS! The truly amazing thing is just how may people still don't even know that there was a third building collapse on that day.


He's a firefighter, not a structural engineer.

I'm sure he's great at putting out fires but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted. How much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors?

All the "experts" I've seen referenced by the 9/11 conspiracy nuts are stating an opinion based on very little evidence.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob



all three building COMPLETELY collapsed from little initial damage and no supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT assisted......lol...again, what doers pathetically pointing to that building do for ya....no really!!!!!


Seriously?

"Little initial damage"

Two fully loaded 767's travelling at speed smash huge holes into the side's of those buildings causing massive damage and you call it "little".

This above quote of yours perfectly embodies what is wrong with most of the "truthers" on this site, you are not so much interested in the truth but rather dominating the debate, being "correct" and "winning". It is a agenda that is breading ignorance on the subject, and the internet is just a means of adding fuel to the fire with each utterly ignorant statement like saying those planes caused "little initial damage".

NO, They did not!!!!

They caused massive damage.

Stop lying to yourself and misrepresenting the facts, stop cherry picking passages from reports and taking money crabbers and egomaniacs trying to make a name from themselves at their; word every time they use the phrase "false flag". It is preposterous, the who concept of the massive government conspiracy to kill almost 3000 of its own citizens and keep it a secret is so detached from reality sometimes I really do have to question my own sanity for spending so much time on the subject.

I really do not understand why "truthers" spend so much time focusing on the most far-fetched theories involving thermite, mini-nukes, holographic planes and space lazers blowing up those buildings under the direction of a maleficent government that also blasts missiles into its own buildings and shots down its own planes. The whole thing belongs on the set of a hollywood blockbuster.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   


He's a firefighter, not a structural engineer. I'm sure he's great at putting out fires Ho but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted.w much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors? All the "experts" I've seen referenced by the 9/11 conspiracy nuts are stating an opinion based on very little evidence.
a reply to: Answer

And the Harley guy's qualifications were just what?
They must have been Harvard because he was featured on every News Channel within half an hour of the towers coming down and it was then as it is now " Gospel"




but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted.w much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors?


Thats very astute to observe the above fact, so nobody knows what actually happened inside the tower but yet here you are posting your wisdom and knocking a life time firefighter's personal testimony.

Let me tell you one thing, I have never disclosed this in a thread but I will now.
My father In law (long gone now) was a Deputy fire chief upon retiring and I will tell you this straight up, Fireman do not lie, they do not fabricate stories, they know what they see and the best part is their job is to save our asses.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: wmd_2008




those on here that cant understand a progressive collapse here we go


including you.....[shakes head]

why are you linking to a gutted building????...from the words..."progressive collapse"?

lol....WHAT does that do for ya.....

and then you proceed to describe a 'construction accident'?....AGAIN, what does that do for ya???????

you seem to be mistaken.....9-11 was GLOBAL collapse x3

all three building COMPLETELY collapsed from little initial damage and no supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT assisted......lol...again, what doers pathetically pointing to that building do for ya....no really!!!!!


LITTLE damage just as well YOU have nothing to do with construction then isn't it.

Progressive collapse is what happened with the Towers once the areas above imapct dropped GAME OVER!

I used the example in the post above to show that if one floor drops YES that can go all the way to ground level.

Again your lack of knowledge and ignorance shines like a beacon in your reply it may have been a construction site but the purpose was to show what could happen if a large multi storey building has a failure in the upper floors be it due to a structural issue or an accident or a terrorist act!

As for the FIRES there are are a whole range of documents available to download and read many of which even YOU would understand


You say LITTLE damage and fire were not a problem explain this then.



At 600 c steel has lost 50% of its strength office fires have been show to reach 1000 c the static loading on the structure doesn't change you can see if you watch the videos of the Twin towers how the Floors above the impact point drop what was a static load is now a DYNAMIC load.

As for claims that WTC 7 fires stopped if you watch the videos at the point of collapse guess what you still see smoke rising from the building.

Before these events THERMAL loading on a structure due to fire was NOT given the same attention as wind or seismic loading, assumptions were made
all that changed after 9/11.


Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not
calculated or designed for


THE IMPORTANT WORDS UNDERLINED so you don't have to think to hard!

The above is from this document Tall Building Fires

Try reading it you may educate yourself a little!!!
edit on 10-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
LITTLE damage just as well YOU have nothing to do with construction then isn't it.


The "little" damage according to truthers reminds me of this....




posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




LITTLE damage just as well YOU have nothing to do with construction then isn't it.


au contraire, about 30 years of building stick and steel throughout New England...





Progressive collapse is what happened with the Towers once the areas above imapct dropped GAME OVER!


lol.....nothing progressive about it....WE SEE they are one smooth collapse wave. There is no stopping and starting of the collapses through laws of mechanics, conservation of momentum, transference of energy, Newtons 2nd, 3rd. law, known structural failure behavior, once initiated the collapses were non-stop, symmetrical, and complete.

....game over?




YES that can go all the way to ground level.


yes-sir-re....but ONLY on 9-11.......never before or since, through the history of history...despite GREATER initial damage....





Again your lack of knowledge and ignorance shines like a beacon


but I'm not the one glowing.....






As for the FIRES there are are a whole range of documents available to download and read many of which even YOU would understand


too bad for YOU, only one entity was charged by Congress to scientifically find out HOW and why three buildings fell on 9-11....NIST....and the 2005 NIST did NOT find ANY scientific reason for collapse x3...


"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

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



do you get it...those 10,000+ pages are THEIR REPORT..




You say LITTLE damage and fire were not a problem explain this then.



one pic you show a glowing tower minutes after impact....post the image of that same side 30 minutes later......where did the fire go????


then you show the impact hole with Edna standing there waving, [the red box],....and up to the left more is someone else hanging onto the very steel that is SO hot and failing the tower....

now, the 2005 NIST says 240 intact FIREPROOFED support remain on that floor NOT involved with impact damage that must simultaneously fail to have occur what we all see.....and no supporting evidence the fires preset failed any to allow collapse to ensue.





above the impact point drop what was a static load is now a DYNAMIC load.


and NO supporting evidence the FIRE PRESENT allowed that to occur...the reason we are all here.






As for claims that WTC 7 fires stopped if you watch the videos at the point of collapse guess what you still see smoke rising from the building.


no, I see smoke from the debris field, and I also see it having a 'chimney effect' as it blows IN THE DIRECTION of WTC7....ya see that same effect all the time at construction sites.....but it's dust from the road.


LOT of 'suggestive' intent on your part......





Before these events THERMAL loading on a structure due to fire was NOT given the same attention as wind or seismic loading, assumptions were made
all that changed after 9/11


lmao....oh yea.......before computers we were all ignorant huh.....and the National Fire Protection Agency has learned NOTHING over the past 100 plus years for fire prevention in office fires huh.

btw....NO changes to either code or application practices as a result of 9-11 IN THIS Country....but of YOU think so, PROVE IT!


and in response to your last statement....I will let John Skilling, the owner of the Company and builder of the towers say it....


"our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

-- John Skilling, City in the Sky


and you do know about the lateral sway dampening system built into truss assemblies of the towers for high winds....how does that ""pull in columns"?..as duhbunkers like to claim occurred?????



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




The "little" damage according to truthers reminds me of this....


now brucee......this is where YOU are suppose to chime in with SUPPORTING evidence to assist your duhbunking partner......but for some reason, you focus all to the attempt to discredit the person posting, rather than the information that person is providing........FOCUS boys!!!!!

play time is OVER......



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I posted these in another thread but that one focused more on the omission of WTC7 from the 9/11 Museum.

I believe explosions were set off before the collapse of the WTC towers.
WTC Towers Demolition

If anyone who believes the official story could comment on the contents of the video linked above I would greatly appreciate it. The video appears to show flashes in windows, followed by the reaction of those people inside and smoke pouring out. There is also a clip of a person being blown clean out of a window.. In my opinion the video shows some pretty damning evidence.

Descriptions of the planes, also make me believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Military Plane Attack



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere




To build on this and to refresh people's memories, Bill Manning, editor in chief of Fire Engineering magazine, said the following about the "official" investigation:


"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure...."



that is similar to the May 2007 newsletter from the Boston Chapter of Civil Engineers, [here are some quotes from it]:



"Since August 2005, when the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) published
its report on the 9/11 collapse of New York’s
World Trade Center Towers, the International
Code Council (ICC) and others have been
struggling to develop provisions based on
NIST’s recommendations. In support of this
effort, ICC members formed the Terror-
Resistant Buildings Committee (TRB) to
develop specific code change proposals and
submit them for adoption into the International
Building Code (IBC). In 2006, TRB prepared a
series of proposals for inclusion in the 2007
supplement to the 2006 IBC.


The National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations (NCSEA) formed an ad-hoc joint
industry committee to review these proposals.
In addition to structural engineers representing
NCSEA, this committee includes representatives
of ASCE/SEI, AIA, ACI, AISC, PCA,
PCI, SJI, TMS and other industry associations.
This committee found that the proposals
developed by TRB were vague, unenforceable,
created undue liability on the part of design
professionals and did little to address the
disasters that occurred on 9/11. The ad hoc
committee was successful in convincing ICC to
reject these proposals at the September 2006
code hearings
, However, the proponent of these
proposals has resubmitted them for
consideration at the final hearings, to be held in May 2007 in Rochester, NY.

While it is unlikely the specific proposals
proposed by TRB will be adopted, IT IS CLEAR THERE IS A POLITICAL WILL on the part of ICC to adopt some changes so that ICC can say it
has improved the building code in light of the
9/11 disasters.


Although most members of the ad hoc
committee believe that major changes to the
building code requirements are not warranted by
the events of 9/11, committee members are
resolved to the inevitability of some change being introduced to the code, based on political rather than technical reasons.
The committee hopes that the proposals it is developing will minimize the impact on design professionals and building construction costs, satisfy the ICC that it has taken appropriate action, and provide some improved integrity in building construction."


[color added by me]


The structural community knew what was going on.....but just as the FDNY, they are gagged from talking about it....not as closely guarded as the FDNY whom will have their pension and health care taken, the structural science of 9-11 is still taboo to talk about in real life if you are a professional.....in other words, if you want to keep on working....you shut up...I have seen this first hand in the building industry.


but that mindset seems to be changing.....good thing there is no statute of limitations on murder.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

WOW 30 years !

Me 35 years first job in the Design & Drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company the last 20 years technical roles within the construction industry showing people like YOU how to use products used in construction CORRECTLY also site testing of products/structural components sometimes to destruction and talks to engineers/architects on product selection/application for their projects


Just to help you out with your vocabulary this is what PROGRESSIVE means.

"proceeding or progressing by steps"

This image shows the result of a progressive collapse

Progressive Collapse


In Bailey's Crossroads, VA, a large apartment complex called Skyline Plaza was under construction. Workers were busy pouring concrete on an apartment building in the complex and at 2:30pm on March 2, 1973, a large progressive collapse occurred in the center of the building, collapsing each floor from the top down. The root cause of the problem is said to be due to the premature removal of forms and shoring for slabs in the vicinity and specific columns on the 23rd floor. Four key concrete columns along with the concrete slab did not reach their desired strength and failed, causing the floor above to collapse onto the floor below, bringing a large center portion of the structure to the ground.


Now that was concrete not fully set falling on concrete that WAS yet the collapse continued to ground level.

Want to explain to everyone why that didn't stop on the floor below!!!!

Now if YOU bother to look closely at the WTC collapse videos and compare with a REAL demolition video, in a real demolition you see the blast/blast wave then the collapse in the Tower videos you see the Towers drop NO blast wave then after impacting area blow the dust debris starts.

Watch ANY of the collapse videos of the towers you will see FIRES still burning at point of collapse for example



Still from video at 3:38



South Tower on left about to collapse North Tower on right looks like flames to me !!!!

Watch the video tell EVERYONE now the fires had stopped


More later when I can spare the time.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder



He's a firefighter, not a structural engineer. I'm sure he's great at putting out fires Ho but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted.w much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors? All the "experts" I've seen referenced by the 9/11 conspiracy nuts are stating an opinion based on very little evidence.
a reply to: Answer

And the Harley guy's qualifications were just what?
They must have been Harvard because he was featured on every News Channel within half an hour of the towers coming down and it was then as it is now " Gospel"




but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted.w much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors?


Thats very astute to observe the above fact, so nobody knows what actually happened inside the tower but yet here you are posting your wisdom and knocking a life time firefighter's personal testimony.

Let me tell you one thing, I have never disclosed this in a thread but I will now.
My father In law (long gone now) was a Deputy fire chief upon retiring and I will tell you this straight up, Fireman do not lie, they do not fabricate stories, they know what they see and the best part is their job is to save our asses.

Regards, Iwinder




I'm not saying the firefighter is lying. I'm saying he doesn't know. Just like you don't know and I don't know and all the 9/11 truthers don't know.

I'd like to see which part of my post was me "posting my wisdom." I said nobody knows. This argument is just as stupid as the "moon-landing was a hoax" argument and the Kennedy assassination argument. It's a bunch of people yelling at each other about conjecture and theory with no actual evidence or facts.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Iwinder



He's a firefighter, not a structural engineer. I'm sure he's great at putting out fires Ho but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted.w much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors? All the "experts" I've seen referenced by the 9/11 conspiracy nuts are stating an opinion based on very little evidence.
a reply to: Answer

And the Harley guy's qualifications were just what?
They must have been Harvard because he was featured on every News Channel within half an hour of the towers coming down and it was then as it is now " Gospel"




but nobody knows what actually happened inside the towers where the planes impacted.w much of the internal structure was destroyed? How much was damaged and weakened by fire? Was there enough undamaged structure to bear the weight of the upper floors?


Thats very astute to observe the above fact, so nobody knows what actually happened inside the tower but yet here you are posting your wisdom and knocking a life time firefighter's personal testimony.

Let me tell you one thing, I have never disclosed this in a thread but I will now.
My father In law (long gone now) was a Deputy fire chief upon retiring and I will tell you this straight up, Fireman do not lie, they do not fabricate stories, they know what they see and the best part is their job is to save our asses.

Regards, Iwinder




I'm not saying the firefighter is lying. I'm saying he doesn't know. Just like you don't know and I don't know and all the 9/11 truthers don't know.

I'd like to see which part of my post was me "posting my wisdom." I said nobody knows. This argument is just as stupid as the "moon-landing was a hoax" argument and the Kennedy assassination argument. It's a bunch of people yelling at each other about conjecture and theory with no actual evidence or facts.


Plenty of evidence on why the Towers fell also plenty of evidence to prove man landed on the Moon the last well.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer



I'm not saying the firefighter is lying. I'm saying he doesn't know. Just like you don't know and I don't know and all the 9/11 truthers don't know.

So the firefighter does not know what he saw and heard? Yet the Harley guy is a National mouth piece who knows everything half an hour after the buildings were brought down?

Your wisdom is "Nobody Knows" but yet to keep harping on people whom claim to know and should know exactly what they saw and heard.

Why don't you claim the "Harley Guy" was talking through his butt hole?
I see you do not want to touch that one or even comment on him.

I suppose the " Harley Guy's education" just might intimidate you a bit being just a College boy yourself.

Last time I will ask this......Why is the Harley man so revered and yet a fireman is so unreliable that he is garbage?

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

lol...uhm...mr duhbunker.....using the collapse to EXPLAIN the collapse....lmao....what does that do fer ya?????





Watch the video tell EVERYONE now the fires had stopped


why don't you link to ONLY the edited footage....seems there is a need for tailored videos huh...there is a site that has the ENTIRE day, all TV channels that aired that day.....link to a continuous, UNCUT video to prove your point.


video does NOT prove fire did this mu duhbunker.....FAILED WTC steel that ALLOWED the collapse to ensue FROM these fires present are what PROVES fire did this.....got any????

can you point to the NIST 10,000+ pages for a 'REPRESENTATION' of this high temp WTC steel that DID fail in order to give DIRECTION it did.....

but, as your many other failures throughout life, this endeavor is no different.

so I guess that is why the LATTER 2008 NIST hypothesis crew officially claims never before seen physics phenomenon did all this work....."LOW TEMP thermal expansion"

and this is truly AMAZING!!!!!.....you found footage of this NEW PHYSICS PHENOMENON at work!!!!!

WOO HOO!!!!!!

now that you have the video, SHOW me the SCIENCE behind the action we see on the video mr duhbunker...



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I just want to add my personal thanks to Mr. Dent for speaking out. I know it can't be easy or in his best personal interest to do so in that NY environment. You rock, Rudy!

[Has anybody considered sending him a thank you message with the supportive comments from the members here? You're welcome to include mine if you do.]



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
That interview just comes off as weird to me. First of all, why is he wearing those earbuds? Maybe he can hear fine with them in (I don't know) but it makes no sense to me that he would engage in a serious interview wearing those ridiculous things if he isn't listening to anything.

Next, he doesn't say anything I haven't heard before other than that little bit about the mayor being in the building for a while or something. Everything else just sounds like a carbon copy of everything that gets said by people like Richard Gage every day. Verbatim.

I guess I don't doubt this guy was a firefighter if he says he was. If he wasn't, it seems like it would be easy enough to prove. But I don't know what to think about him. I don't really believe him when he says the reason he didn't say anything was because of protocols and so forth. That's just ridiculous. Honestly, is there anyone here who wouldn't have at least tried to go straight to the media if you were a firefighter that day and you believed your own government had done this?

I don't believe for a second that good people would have been quiet if they believed it was a false flag and they lost as many of their friends as they did.

Now I am NOT saying I don't believe it's possible that it was a "false flag" or "inside job" or whatever you want to call it. I am just suspicious of this guy. He doesn't sound like he knows anything.



new topics

top topics



 
118
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join