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.

 

Ground Zero Footage

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: Emerys

I saw that doco too!

I saw another one recently which was made quite a few years ago - saying that the fireproofing was in the process of being upgraded. Now - if that's true - could it be possible that thermite or whatever be put in place during those operations?


I think at this point, if NIST says it's possible for office fires to bring down buildings, anything is possible.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllIsOne
I have a simple question. Why was there so much dust / sand / pulverized concrete? Is that normal?


Thousands of sq mtrs of sheetrock, sprayed on fire proofing, vermiculite on exterior walls, paint, soot etc from the fires , dust build up in areas that could never be cleaned, glass and that's before you consider damaged concrete.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AllIsOne



I personally wouldn't accept this source if it were the other way, but it is not like there was a proper investigation or a record of how much weight of each material was removed from the site. OS cheerleaders just skate around this question by throwing variables at it that can never be confirmed at this point since the investigation was limited to a budget and time schedule.

9/11 RESEARCH




Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps, says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.


Turning concrete, reinforced with rebar, to dust takes massive amounts of energy and it started at the immediate point where the collapse started.

A proper investigation would have weighed the concrete removed from the site and there would have been a report of how much was still intact. I guess at this point we will never know.

edit on 20-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

but it is not like there was a proper investigation


Can you give us an example of what you consider a proper investigation, so we can compare the two.

As far as I know 911 is the largest most in-depth investigation in history. Can you show us one that is more comprehensive.

Good luck.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

but it is not like there was a proper investigation


Can you give us an example of what you consider a proper investigation, so we can compare the two.

As far as I know 911 is the largest most in-depth investigation in history. Can you show us one that is more comprehensive.

Good luck.


Can you describe this "depth" and tell us how much time and money was spent? I am pretty sure there was not a lot of info discovered through investigations that wasn't known and narrated on September 12, 2001. What new information came as a result of "the most in depth investigation in US history" LMAO.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Can you describe this "depth" and tell us how much time and money was spent? I am pretty sure there was not a lot of info discovered through investigations that wasn't known and narrated on September 12, 2001. What new information came as a result of "the most in depth investigation in US history" LMAO.


You claim 911 was not properly investigated and you can't give us an example of a proper investigation for us to compare ?

Why am i not surprised.

You made the claim... now back it up.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Can you describe this "depth" and tell us how much time and money was spent? I am pretty sure there was not a lot of info discovered through investigations that wasn't known and narrated on September 12, 2001. What new information came as a result of "the most in depth investigation in US history" LMAO.


You claim 911 was not properly investigated and you can't give us an example of a proper investigation for us to compare ?

Why am i not surprised.

You made the claim... now back it up.






Months after the commission had officially issued its report and ceased its functions, Chairman Kean and other commissioners toured the country to draw attention to the recommendations of the commission for reducing the terror risk, claiming that some of their recommendations were being ignored. Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote a book about the constraints they faced as commissioners titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.[19]


WIKI LINK

How do you investigate what caused building to collapse if there is barely any pieces of the structure left to investigate?




Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure? 

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1  

The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year. 2  

Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:

If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do. Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything.3  

The pace of the steel's removal was very rapid, even in the first weeks after the attack. By September 29, 130,000 tons of debris -- most of it apparently steel -- had been removed. 4  

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. 5   One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.



Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).


9/11 RESEARCH

Just curious, where did you get the information that made you believe that 9/11 was "the largest most in-depth investigation in history" ??? Is that what they teach kids in school these days?







edit on 21-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA





Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure?




UNDERLINED above!

It wasn't JUST due to fires was it
is there some kind of MENTAL problem with people regarding this, the TOWERS were DAMAGED due to the impacts it wasn't just fires that brought them down.
edit on 21-9-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA



How do you investigate what caused building to collapse if there is barely any pieces of the structure left to investigate?

It's easy.
Thousands saw the planes crash into the building.
Millions saw the fires burn.
Firefighters all over the world know metal trusses fail in fires.

Side thought:
Where are all the firefighters that say those trusses are safe in a fire?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

I think a lot more than a handful of videos and eye witness accounts is required for a "Proper" analysis.

I'm no metallurgist but I'm willing to bet much could be ascertained about how much of an effect the fires and impact had on the steel if the steel was still around to examine properly.

The very fact that much of the "evidence" was skirted away as fast as possible makes the whole day suspect, ad to that three identical collapses etc..



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA





Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure?




UNDERLINED above!

It wasn't JUST due to fires was it
is there some kind of MENTAL problem with people regarding this, the TOWERS were DAMAGED due to the impacts it wasn't just fires that brought them down.


What difference does that make when figuring out if the steel was worth keeping for an investigation? Because the author didn't word the sentence the way you would have liked, there is no need to keep all of the steel for an investigation?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Just curious, where did you get the information that made you believe that 9/11 was "the largest most in-depth investigation in history" ??? Is that what they teach kids in school these days?





Dude, I'm asking You to give me an example of a larger more in-debth investigation so we can compare the two.
I don't have an example, and if you can't find an example, Then it is, by default, the largest most in depth investigation in history.


Good luck.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvneDidn't the gov't spend more money investigating steroids in baseball than 9/11?Thought I read that somewhere before.
ETA-almost 4 times as much money investigating Barry Bonds I believe.

edit on 21-9-2014 by crazyeddie68 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyeddie68

Barry Bonds ? You are not even close.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA





Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure?




UNDERLINED above!

It wasn't JUST due to fires was it
is there some kind of MENTAL problem with people regarding this, the TOWERS were DAMAGED due to the impacts it wasn't just fires that brought them down.


What difference does that make when figuring out if the steel was worth keeping for an investigation? Because the author didn't word the sentence the way you would have liked, there is no need to keep all of the steel for an investigation?


SERIOUSLY the statement reads as if ONLY FIRES were responsible for bringing the Towers Down, when we ALSO know the buildings had structural damage due to the impacts!!!



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA





Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since the collapse of steel-framed skyscrapers due to fires is completely unprecedented, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure?




UNDERLINED above!

It wasn't JUST due to fires was it
is there some kind of MENTAL problem with people regarding this, the TOWERS were DAMAGED due to the impacts it wasn't just fires that brought them down.


What difference does that make when figuring out if the steel was worth keeping for an investigation? Because the author didn't word the sentence the way you would have liked, there is no need to keep all of the steel for an investigation?


SERIOUSLY the statement reads as if ONLY FIRES were responsible for bringing the Towers Down, when we ALSO know the buildings had structural damage due to the impacts!!!





yeah good one ...the impacts at the top of the building weakened the steel at the bottom of the building



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
yeah good one ...the impacts at the top of the building weakened the steel at the bottom of the building


What a silly claim - who said the steel at the bottom of the building was weakened?



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
yeah good one ...the impacts at the top of the building weakened the steel at the bottom of the building


What a silly claim - who said the steel at the bottom of the building was weakened?


ok you explain to me what wmd2008 means by this statement then ...



SERIOUSLY the statement reads as if ONLY FIRES were responsible for bringing the Towers Down, when we ALSO know the buildings had structural damage due to the impacts!!!



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008


SERIOUSLY the statement reads as if ONLY FIRES were responsible for bringing the Towers Down, when we ALSO know the buildings had structural damage due to the impacts!!!



Hey Guy - in the original plans/designs the towers were designed to withstand aircraft impact
Slightly smaller jets back in the 1970s but the architect factored in a bit more.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
ok you explain to me what wmd2008 means by this statement then ...


SERIOUSLY the statement reads as if ONLY FIRES were responsible for bringing the Towers Down, when we ALSO know the buildings had structural damage due to the impacts!!!


The towers had structural damage because they were hit by high speed jet airliners (unless you are one of those truthers who like to claim holographic planes were used....) so as well as fires the buildings had structural damage....

What is so hard to understand about that? Planes hit buildings, buildings damaged, building had unchecked fires, buildings collapsed....




top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join