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.

 

Evidence of demolition company at 9/11

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

When people have nothing to say they pull out that video and ignore everything else, that's a clear sign they are not worth discussing with.

Live in your world and i'll live in mine


Have a good one.




posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: lambros56

Not to mention the armchair experts who claim conspiracy without a shred of evidence.

Except for all the tin foil hat stuff. I mean, the evidence of conspiracy is so overwhelming that ... wait. No one believes it except for tin foil hat types.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

Because a beat cop didn't know. A beat cop is the equivalent of a water works person... it's ludicrous. If you people kept your conspiracy theories to those that should know the truth and be.in on the fix you would be a lot more believable........ a beat cop knew ... really?


Lol



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ugmold

When people have nothing to say they pull out that video and ignore everything else, that's a clear sign they are not worth discussing with.

Live in your world and i'll live in mine


Have a good one.


Cat got your tongue? No response? Nothing misleading or false in what I posted, you have simply been beat.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

Just so you don't misunderstand, you didn't scare me away, you are just not worth explaining anything, cause you are clearly stuck in your world.

Period.

But still, have a good one



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
So it seems people were questioning the official narrative before it was even official...



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ugmold

Just so you don't misunderstand, you didn't scare me away, you are just not worth explaining anything, cause you are clearly stuck in your world.

Period.

But still, have a good one


Well that is pretty insulting, and weak. You have no argument so you give up. I giving you proof that those little office fires didn't bring down a 47 Story steel structure building (Gillianni's Command center was fortified which would of at least created more resistance, but it collapsed like everything else. Cognitive Dissonance is your World. If you are going to quit, then give up.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold




I giving you proof that those little office fires didn't bring down a 47 Story steel structure building


But i never said anywhere that the fires brought down the buildings, i showed that there was a huge fire and i provided videos to prove it, but you choose to ignore the video proof and start talking about other buildings.

You have made up your mind already, there is no need for you and me to discuss any further, anything i post you will ignore, as you did with my first two post and then derail with the comment "small office fire", even though the videos i provided show huge building fires, even the video you, youself posted, shows them incl. the smoke and the wind as i explained it.

What we are discussing now has been through the mill thousand of times here on ATS, it really becomes boring when people like you keep regurgitating the same line over and over ignoring EVERYTHING else, so that is the other reason i think it's not worth it.

I know you will probably come out with a last intimidation to get me back, but i think i made my self clear....I'm not interested in discussing with you.

Last time ....Have a good one.

edit on 22-9-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Those fires were small period. Nothing in an office burns with much intensity, it smolders. Smoldering fires are not hot, weakening one column will not bring down a building, symmetrically or otherwise.

This was one refined demolition, vastly superior than the videos you pointed to, if there was no need to worry about expense, better methods could be used, thermite, maybe something else. Although so many videos have the telltale explosions in them. The twin towers had explosions in the sub basement, many witness will attest to that, William Rodriguez gives a fine testimony.

Since 911 the Country has gone down the sh•thole, it is when it began and it is never coming back, thanks to the bastards responsible, as planned.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
I giving you proof that those little office fires didn't bring down a 47 Story steel structure building (Gillianni's Command .


You're absolutely right that little office fires didn't bring down building 7.

MASSIVE widespread fire and MASSIVE structural damage caused by falling debris from the North Tower collapse ultimately caused building 7 to collapse.

Just because you choose to take bits and pieces of the story to form your own opinion does not make it valid. Try understanding what actually happened to building 7 first and you might start believing the story. Clearly, you don't have a clue if you think "little office fires" brought the building down. Stop believing other people's version of what happened and do a little research.
edit on 9/22/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Then why waste your time posting your pointless posts? Move along. Let the rest of us who still care about what happened to all those innocent people on that day never stop asking questions, and never stop searching for the truth. Millions have died from this one event. All of our rights have become worthless, all from this one event. The dollar weakens, police grow stronger by the day while citizens grow weaker. I will never stop asking questions until I get the answers. And what we were told on that day, is not the answer.


Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.
-Voltaire
edit on 22-9-2014 by Emerys because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambros56
a reply to: Mianeye


There`s also lots of armchair experts........
who believe two planes caused three skyscrapers to disappear....without any evidence.



Without any evidence?

I don't know where you've been but there are quite a few videos showing each building collapse from multiple angles. The simple fact is, there is NOTHING in those videos to indicate that the collapses were caused by anything but structural failure at the areas most damaged. The collapses look nothing like a controlled demolition and every statement I've heard from the truthers can be easily debunked with a basic application of common sense.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: lambros56
a reply to: Mianeye


There`s also lots of armchair experts........
who believe two planes caused three skyscrapers to disappear....without any evidence.



The collapses look nothing like a controlled demolition and every statement I've heard from the truthers can be easily debunked with a basic application of common sense.


Are you kidding me?? IT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

Every single "truther" question. Answer me this, explain to me how people with no expert flying skills could accomplish these attacks with more skill than most pilots today? Even the teacher of one of the terrorists, the only one I am aware of who had even been to flying lessons, stated, he couldn't even fly a small plane. Commercial pilots are some of the most skilled pilots with thousands of hours behind the wheel.


Kieran Daly, the editor of the Internet publication Air Transport Intelligence, said, "Flying an aircraft into a building is not as simple as it appears." He said the hijackers "would have needed some experience to have been able to steer the planes into the World Trade Centre." [10] Robin Lloyd compared the targets of the WTC towers to "narrow runways tipped vertically." From "switching off the autopilot," the hijackers "would have to know how to control the aircraft and be able to find the target," he said. Lloyd said that "rag-trousered terrorists with no flying experience could not have hit" the Twin Towers. [11]
edit on 22-9-2014 by Emerys because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
3 decades of commercial construction experience starting as a drywall apprentice ending up with a bachelors in construction management with jobs like Waikiki Landmark, Nauru Tower, Hawaii Prince, I have a bit to say about this subject.

Never in history has such a big plane filled with jet fuel flat out rocket into 110 story buildings. Much less the way these were framed structurally. I'd like to see if someone actually engineered them to take a hit like that.

For the OP.
High rise building are always being worked on. Entire floors gutted and rebuilt. I'd like to see pictures or read from witnesses that worked at WTC that they saw demo guys months or years beforehand. Someone had to see something.

The structural steel was coated with monocoat that is sprayed on while in a semi liquid state, thickness determines rating of fire prevention. I've knocked off enough monocoat from structural steel to cover the moon to attach metal stud framing and it doesn't take much. Good whack of the framing hammer and a nice size chunk is flying down into your buddys face and lungs. Good (itchy) stuff.

I don't need to use any equations to know the monocoat went bye bye in the matter of seconds. The shock wave took care of that. For how many floors? Doesn't matter.

So now, we have this steel tube filled with human stuff, stuff that catches fire with a full tank of jet fuel basically in aerosol form igniting how many tons?

Moment diagrams.
These things visually and mathematically calculate the load of any given building.
The sum of the moment MUST equal ZERO.
The millisecond that happens to not its all over. Done. Gravity WILL take over and thing will go straight down especially if they're heavy.

Ever wonder why fire sprinklers are coded in commercial buildings and not residential?
Save the product huh?
Nope.
Commercial buildings are almost entirely made of concrete and steel.
Steel fails at 1,100 °F. FAILS
These floors were what? Closer to an acre than not?

Look man, I believe the government knew 9/11 was going to happen, Cheney was most likely praying for it to happen and popped a load when it did but unless explosives were placed during construction which I'm sure someone is saying its so, the buildings went down because the sum of the moment was no longer zero. You can't have one floor fail and expect the upper floors to stay put. The jet fuel reached how many floors, like it matters...

7 burned on several floors, pics all over the net and just because it wasn't hit by an airplane doesn't invalidate a moment diagram. The sum of the moment can't equal .1 and stand because a plane didn't hit it. Standard fire protection would be 2-4 hours for the structural steel not factoring in the load.

Architects and engineers huh?
3 decades at every conceivable position in commercial construction and every single job we're cursing.... Guess who?
I was running a Yard House build at the beginning of the year. It had this soffit we built out of 16 gauge steel studs ranging from 6" to 12" at 210 linear feet carrying a on of finish, etc. The details called for a 32" chunk of unistrut shot into the concrete deck overhead with 3 1.5" concrete pins rated at 200lbs. every 8ft. Death trap. No way that would have held so I assembled a RFI (request for info) with the rating of the concrete pins at 200lbs and the correct anchors rated at 2 tons and e-mailed it to the engineer. He told me it was ok as it was a "light weight" soffit. I emailed him back the specs for the steel alone which had an added 4" X 1/4" angle iron that weighed 1000 lbs.
Of course we used the right anchors but when the inspector arrived with the superintendent in tow I mentioned the original anchoring system and he said it would have never worked.

Look man, my instructors were architects and engineers and some of them never held a hammer or have a clue what building a building is away from an AutoCAD station. So there's a bunch of architects and engineers saying it was a controlled demo huh? BFD.

Nice paper on it all:
www-math.mit.edu...
edit on SepMon, 22 Sep 2014 21:48:10 -05001America/Chicago2014 by MrNeo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MrNeo

Thank you for your input and wisdom on the matter that the company you worked for hired architects and engineers who were not as smart as you. With a B.S in Construction, I do take your advice into account. However, with that said, your experience still cannot answer how those planes were taken over, how those with no experience could pilot such planes. And furthermore, those buildings were designed to withstand those plane crashes. Even the builders and designers of them said so and here is the informatio n.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Emerys
how those with no experience could pilot such planes.


Another truther silly story, not based on anything factual!


And furthermore, those buildings were designed to withstand those plane crashes.


Not really, here is what Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer for the WTC actually said...


The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength.

www.nae.edu...

So it was designed for a low speed airliner, low on fuel looking to land. Not a high speed ramming by a heavier jet airliner heavily loaded with fuel.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

LOL yeah, the average beat cop knew that it was coming down, as no doubt the fire dept knew. Heck, I am sure the janitor knew.

And so far everyone has kept their mouths shut. Yep... that could happen! /sarc

What's your point? I didn't claim the flatfoot was in on any conspiracy. However there's no way anyone could think much less know that the building would collapse from fire damage. It's never happened so there was no reason to assume it would. It wasn't even on the same parcel of land as the towers. It was across the street. The only way someone would know that the building was coming down is because it was designed to come down. This information was relayed to command control for police and fire. I suspect they weren't even told why the person informing them knew why it was going to come down. People follow orders in a chain of command especially when their fat retirement paychecks are at stake. There's not an engineer or architect on the planet that would have definitively said "That building is going to collapse". Not one. The best they would possibly say, and given the construction of the structure and a lack of any evidence fire would cause catastrophic failure, is "There's risk of some failure due to fire and I'd keep people away from the building until it can be surveyed." That's it. No one in their right mind would say that it would definitively collapse. None!


Are you being intentionally dense?

The gigantic towers that came down that morning and killed a couple thousand people might have... just possibly... made them extra cautious. Combine that with the VISUAL CONFIRMATION by chopper pilots that parts of the building were starting to crumple, bulge, and give way and anyone would start to assume that the building is going to collapse.

It wasn't just fire that brought down WTC 7. The building had extensive structural damage due to falling debris from the North tower collapse... a fact conveniently ignored by the truthers so they can push the "there's no way only fire brought the building down!" line. If you're going to argue the events of that day, at least have the facts straight so your story isn't so easy to pick apart. I get tired of debunking the same old truther statements line-by-line because people haven't bothered to get the whole story. If people would put forth a little effort and understand everything that went on at the scene instead of relying on bits and pieces from truther websites, it would go a long way toward settling this idiotic argument.
Show us the extensive damage. Go ahead and show us pics of extensive damage.

See this is what OSers do. They make unsubstantiated claims as if it's fact.

It's clear you guys are pushing an agenda. I hope you can live with yourselves. I know we can't live with you and if the truth comes out anyone supporting the lies are culpable as those that did these deeds. Remember.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
The Port Authority consulted the buildings' engineers, demolitions engineers, biological weapons experts, etc. in the 1980's to find any vulnerabilities that terrorists might expose. Airplanes and bombs in the basement were both brought up back then.

Seems like the Port Authority wasn't interested in preventing these things, despite calling all these experts together. More like they wanted ideas for how to cause a disaster and then blame someone else, to start a new world war.


The Rockefeller brothers had the towers built. They're the ones who came up with this brilliant scheme, more than likely.

www.historycommons.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds “one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site.” In particular, “There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage.” However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

LOL yeah, the average beat cop knew that it was coming down, as no doubt the fire dept knew. Heck, I am sure the janitor knew.

And so far everyone has kept their mouths shut. Yep... that could happen! /sarc

What's your point? I didn't claim the flatfoot was in on any conspiracy. However there's no way anyone could think much less know that the building would collapse from fire damage. It's never happened so there was no reason to assume it would. It wasn't even on the same parcel of land as the towers. It was across the street. The only way someone would know that the building was coming down is because it was designed to come down. This information was relayed to command control for police and fire. I suspect they weren't even told why the person informing them knew why it was going to come down. People follow orders in a chain of command especially when their fat retirement paychecks are at stake. There's not an engineer or architect on the planet that would have definitively said "That building is going to collapse". Not one. The best they would possibly say, and given the construction of the structure and a lack of any evidence fire would cause catastrophic failure, is "There's risk of some failure due to fire and I'd keep people away from the building until it can be surveyed." That's it. No one in their right mind would say that it would definitively collapse. None!


Are you being intentionally dense?

The gigantic towers that came down that morning and killed a couple thousand people might have... just possibly... made them extra cautious. Combine that with the VISUAL CONFIRMATION by chopper pilots that parts of the building were starting to crumple, bulge, and give way and anyone would start to assume that the building is going to collapse.

It wasn't just fire that brought down WTC 7. The building had extensive structural damage due to falling debris from the North tower collapse... a fact conveniently ignored by the truthers so they can push the "there's no way only fire brought the building down!" line. If you're going to argue the events of that day, at least have the facts straight so your story isn't so easy to pick apart. I get tired of debunking the same old truther statements line-by-line because people haven't bothered to get the whole story. If people would put forth a little effort and understand everything that went on at the scene instead of relying on bits and pieces from truther websites, it would go a long way toward settling this idiotic argument.


Show us the extensive damage. Go ahead and show us pics of extensive damage.


Sure, I'll happily take 5 seconds to conduct a google search since you're too lazy to do your own research which is exactly why you buy the truther story in the first place.

This whole thing would DIE if people would bother researching what actually happened instead of believing the utter horsesh1t on truther conspiracy sites. Use your own brain, do your own research, and stop believing the lies spread by truther resources.

Do you know why there are very few pictures of the damage to WTC building 7? The damage was mostly blocked by smoke from those "puny office fires" that you've talked about so many times. There was a vertical gash down the middle of the building.



Also, here's one of those photos that you claim don't exist... but that's what the truthers do, parrot the crap they read on truther blogs and spread lies because they haven't researched the claims for themselves.

Pic of top of gash.



edit on 9/23/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)


Another pic that you claim doesn't exist:

Pic of damage to WTC 7

Here are those tiny irrelevant fires:

LiveLink Video


Are we done here?

edit on 9/23/2014 by Answer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join