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.
originally posted by: cheery1
If the "theory" of the pancake was true as is the "claim" then surely the "supposed" lighter load above would have stayed mostly intact as it rode the pancaking down..?
Exactly why do you think that?
What I mean is.. in order for Z Bazant's (whom most "o.STORY" liners seem to quote) THEORY to be correct..
The (lighter) load from above "the impact area" was the pile-driver that "drove" the pancaking effect..
Sorry.. This Does Not Compute...
The top of the towers disintegrate (Turn to Powder)... where is the so-called "pile-driving force..."???
On a lighter note.. Here is one (of many) example discrediting this theory..
youtu.be...
Goyim
originally posted by: cheery1
The (lighter) load from above "the impact area" was the pile-driver that "drove" the pancaking effect..
The top of the towers disintegrate (Turn to Powder)...
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
A lot of the pans should be torn but they should still be there,
not "shredded" which I personally would accredit with blown,
You can claim that I am ignoring the floor pans posted to fit MY preconceived notion, but not knowing where the photos were taken, and which building they were from is leaving my notion in the realm of very realistic.
originally posted by: cheery1
What I mean is.. in order for Z Bazant's (whom most "o.STORY" liners seem to quote) THEORY to be correct..
The (lighter) load from above "the impact area" was the pile-driver that "drove" the pancaking effect..
Sorry.. This Does Not Compute...
The top of the towers disintegrate (Turn to Powder)... where is the so-called "pile-driving force..."???
But the damage done to both towers was not the same....
No it did not.... again, why do you think it "turned to powder"?
originally posted by: lexyghot
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
A lot of the pans should be torn but they should still be there,
We have photos of them. So they are there.
not "shredded" which I personally would accredit with blown,
Why choose the most outlandish option without evidence?
You can claim that I am ignoring the floor pans posted to fit MY preconceived notion, but not knowing where the photos were taken, and which building they were from is leaving my notion in the realm of very realistic.
None of your notions are realistic. they reject the simple explanation and rely on fantasy.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
No I don't believe that the collapse would "shred" 18-16 gauge metal. It would tear it up, not shred it.
It is not realistic to wonder if the pieces of floor pan found were from up in the towers of 1 and 2 or from the buildings that were crushed below??
6.5 million square feet of floor space. Almost all of that required metal floor pan. The few hundred feet that were posted is not an answer.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
That looks like floor pans. I obviously can't ask which building those are from, or do you know?
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
If what seems obvious, was actually true - the concrete was blown out of the building
We are looking for millions of square feet of floor pan. They would be a major portion of the debris.
Yes, it's not realistic to wonder if the photos are representative of the entire area. In the photos provided, torn up floor pans are easily identified. All but the most ardent activist would find this as acceptable evidence that the floor pans are there. I really don't understand your mindset when you question this fact.
It's a silly game you're playing. Why?
Like I said, it's a silly game you're playing. Everyone can see it.
Activists like you would have the others believe that those responsible for blowing up the towers would be so stupid as to set charges to blow up all the floors and floor pans.
You have zero evidence that a large percentage of the concrete was expelled. We know why you want this claim to be valid too. You want to claim that since nearly all of the concrete in the floors was expelled, that proves that CD, PLUS it means that there wasn't enough weight for the collapse to continue.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Spray on fire insulation? Very light stuff when reduced to powder and OS claims that it was sprayed on very thin and even void in many cases.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Segment 3: Building 7!
The most suspect situation of that historical day...
The Smoking Gun in many people eyes...
The building that the BBC said came down, a good 10 minutes before its actual "collapse"...
The building that was "pulled" according to Larry Silverstein...
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
A few photos of a small area are NOT representative of the entire area.
There is nothing that makes sense to describe the fountain spewing from the towers. What ever the powder was made of was heavy as it descended quickly.
Drywall? No. Very fine powder,
Vermiculite? There may be some but any partition wall built since the mid 80's wouldn't have used that. Maybe even before then.
Spray on fire insulation? Very light stuff when reduced to powder and OS claims that it was sprayed on very thin and even void in many cases.
Those are not something someone who is uninfluenced by the OS would come up with.
everyone can see that I made a mistake giving the impression that a few floor pans in a couple of photos would rule out a fountain of concrete. And now they can see rabid exploitation.
I don't think that those that blew up the towers were really too concerned with what was or was not discovered.
The physical evidence was expedited off the property.
That is a reason why I keep pushing this issue and it is the same reason you keep denying the possibility.
NIST did not prove that global collapse initiation is what brought down the towers, the only tried to prove that it was possible, hypothetically.
In other words, fill in the blanks as scientifically as possible to conclude that the OS that took the US to war against 2 nations for, was possible.
You are so desperate to hold onto a fashionable theory that you will claim all that dust was from drywall and insulation.... maybe a little concrete.
originally posted by: lexyghot
You originally asked for "A" photo. Now you want more. Why the change?
There was no fountain.
the concrete, drywall, and insulation dust were forced straight sideways out the windows. Only a fool (or an activist, uninterested in honestly representing what happened) doesn't recognize, after viewing a video or 2, that the dust went straight sideways out the windows, and that the dust nearest to the space where the buildings were just occupying gets sucked downwards as the roof passes downward. That';s reality.
So now the dust settled quickly, in your opinion? Was it too quick? What experience do you base this on?
Everyone in the construction trades - like I was at one time - recognizes that drywall, concrete, and spray on fire insulation would make a lot of dust in the collapses.
Your mistake is becoming a truther in the first place.
They wouldn't do it in the first place cuz it's stupid and unnecessary. Like you cut out, Bazant trivially proved that once started, collapse progression was inevitable.
And to shine a light on the stupidity of your argument, if anything, these guys would want to take measures that the concrete DIDN'T get blown out the windows, cuz the weight is needed. This is the flip side of your argument. You want to claim that concrete was blown out the windows with explosives, but the perps that you fantasize about wouldn't want that, so they wouldn't DO that.
But you can't see the dead end that you're painting yourself into. Hilarious.
Yes, it was hauled off so that repair work could begin. The problem you're gonna have with THIS argument, is that it was hauled away to a landfill and inspected by engineers contracted by FEMA. They looked at all the steel and had the workers separate those that showed interest. There's still a lot at JFK airport.
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
New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed.
But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11.
"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."
I deny the possibility cuz there's no evidence of explosives. None. The truther argument begins in ignorance and proceeds circularly through incredulity, appeals to perfection, and strawman arguments without even a moments hesitation. All truthers do it.
The NIST report stands as the best explanation. There's zero evidence of explosives. None.
The NIST report didn't take us to war. It's an engineering report.
You claim to be in the trades, right?
What is more friable?
Drywall or concrete?
Insulation or concrete?
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I am very confident concrete would win hands down.