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.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 8
89
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I'm not claiming it wasn't. If you look I was pointing out the fact that you can't say the towers fell on wtc7 and not the hotel. I never once claimed that debris never hit it. None of your links work buddy.




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.

Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
edit on 4781642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


it is interesting that you compare this crash site to Lockerbie as 103 was destroyed in the air. The destroyed parts of the aircraft created a much larger scar in the ground that the one 93 supposedly created. So how do smaller, damaged parts of an aircraft create a much larger hole than an entire aircraft hitting the ground in one piece?


The comparison was for one reason, to show the relative small size of craters from impact by airplane debris. The crater is never going to be as 'big as a jet liner', only the most densest parts are heavy enough to "make a crater".

Same question was asked at the pentagon… why is the hole so small?

An airline appears big but is mostly air (called an airframe) that is hollow with heavier parts like engines and landing gear.

The heavy denser parts make holes in the ground, not some "aluminum sheet metal".
so why weren't the aluminium sheets that made up the wings and fuselage left either on the surface or partially embedded in the ground? I don't believe they followed the more dense and solid parts of the aircraft into the holes made by them.

The parts are there, in tatters. And all around the site, in little bits. The usual result of a high speed impact with the ground. Thats why Military pilots sometimes refer to hi speed crashes as a "smoking hole in the ground". Theres not much left that even remotely resembles an air craft.

93 impact debris, use the zoom feature



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


it is interesting that you compare this crash site to Lockerbie as 103 was destroyed in the air. The destroyed parts of the aircraft created a much larger scar in the ground that the one 93 supposedly created. So how do smaller, damaged parts of an aircraft create a much larger hole than an entire aircraft hitting the ground in one piece?


The comparison was for one reason, to show the relative small size of craters from impact by airplane debris. The crater is never going to be as 'big as a jet liner', only the most densest parts are heavy enough to "make a crater".

Same question was asked at the pentagon… why is the hole so small?

An airline appears big but is mostly air (called an airframe) that is hollow with heavier parts like engines and landing gear.

The heavy denser parts make holes in the ground, not some "aluminum sheet metal".
so why weren't the aluminium sheets that made up the wings and fuselage left either on the surface or partially embedded in the ground? I don't believe they followed the more dense and solid parts of the aircraft into the holes made by them.

The parts are there, in tatters. And all around the site, in little bits. The usual result of a high speed impact with the ground. Thats why Military pilots sometimes refer to hi speed crashes as a "smoking hole in the ground". Theres not much left that even remotely resembles an air craft.

93 impact debris, use the zoom feature
and the bodies? Luggage? Interior?

For the record intrptr I'm not trying to make out I am right and you are wrong or anything like that. Too often these discussions turn into childish point scoring contests. You may well be correct and I may well be wrong, just voicing my opinion as you are buddy



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

By the way, the towers didn't "both fall directly down on the Marriot". The parts of the hotel that were impacted directly were destroyed by tower debris, not whole towers. By the time the cloud of debris reached the Marriot it was a churning mass of girders and pulverized cement.

the towers never fell on wtc7 though and it wasn't right underneath them when they fell.

Tower debris fell over a wide area. You could google that yourself and do some searching by images to see. Once the dust cleared and the fires were extinguished (except for the tower basements) you can see how many buildings next to the towers sustained damage.

Heres one pic...



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

By the way, the towers didn't "both fall directly down on the Marriot". The parts of the hotel that were impacted directly were destroyed by tower debris, not whole towers. By the time the cloud of debris reached the Marriot it was a churning mass of girders and pulverized cement.

the towers never fell on wtc7 though and it wasn't right underneath them when they fell.

Tower debris fell over a wide area. You could google that yourself and do some searching by images to see. Once the dust cleared and the fires were extinguished (except for the tower basements) you can see how many buildings next to the towers sustained damage.

Heres one pic...

yes but my point is the towers were directly above the hotel yet it never fell, where as wtc7 was across the street and it did collapse.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


what you are missing out is the fact there is extensive work carried out to weaken the building before collapse.

You mean like the fires from ten thousand gallons of gas that burned unchecked for an hour?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I just came to point out the ridiculous explanation of the Pentagon atack. To inisist that it was an elaborate illusion that required the plane to fly over a drone strike at the exact same time shows just how far you're reaching here. Why not just fly the plane into the Pentagon if you're going to have one there exactly the same time ase your drone strike? It makes no sense, and is clearly a childish imagining of the situation. This is only one of the many points of contention I have thought up while reading, but I won't waste my time making you look silly. You don't need anyone to do that for you, clearly.
edit on 15-2-2015 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


and the bodies? Luggage? Interior?

Little bits. You want to see whole planes and bodies, but you must remember these planes were flown at hundreds of miles an hour into buildings and the ground.

Heres a pic of some debris that came raining down out the other side of the world trade center. This pic was taken after the impact before the collapse. See the red bits on the ground? Those are bits of bodies, easier to see them on cement than in the field where 93 impacted.

"bodies"



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

By the way, the towers didn't "both fall directly down on the Marriot". The parts of the hotel that were impacted directly were destroyed by tower debris, not whole towers. By the time the cloud of debris reached the Marriot it was a churning mass of girders and pulverized cement.







Hehe. Intrptr, your so automated to that response and didn't read my earlier post. Who gave the reporter the assertion that WTC7 was under threat of collapse within an hour of the second collapse and how did they come to that knowledge at that moment?

If I remember, there is a video of an SS agent sweeping the building around the same period. You and I debated that thread, you might remember. Who made the announcement, fed to the FOX reporter? Was it the SS? because we both watched the video of that guy. Seems weird that the SS would be the ones responsible to oversee that threat, but I would be given no reason to think otherwise of FOX is outside pointing at the building, saying that collapse could be imminent and a lone SS agent and is sweeping his way out the of the building with a CBS cameraman?

Does that add up to you? If FOX has info WTC7 could collapse, why is the FDNY not sweeping the building instead of the SS agent. Or at least send up the two guys in suits on "stand-by" overseeing FOX interviews to help. FOX reporter says "there is a lot of people on stand-by" so what up?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

The wings are hollow shells. They rarely survive any impact even remotely intact.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA


The Marriott hotel had both towers fall almost directly down upon it and the remaining structure never fell.

Apples and oranges. The towers were constructed differently, cement floors suspended inside a steel exo skeleton "tube".

By the way, the towers didn't "both fall directly down on the Marriot". The parts of the hotel that were impacted directly were destroyed by tower debris, not whole towers. By the time the cloud of debris reached the Marriot it was a churning mass of girders and pulverized cement.







Hehe. Intrptr, your so automated to that response and didn't read my earlier post. Who gave the reporter the assertion that WTC7 was under threat of collapse within an hour of the second collapse and how did they come to that knowledge at that moment?

If I remember, there is a video of an SS agent sweeping the building around the same period. You and I debated that thread, you might remember. Who made the announcement, fed to the FOX reporter? Was it the SS? because we both watched the video of that guy. Seems weird that the SS would be the ones responsible to oversee that threat, but I would be given no reason to think otherwise of FOX is outside pointing at the building, saying that collapse could be imminent and a lone SS agent and is sweeping his way out the of the building with a CBS cameraman?

Does that add up to you? If FOX has info WTC7 could collapse, why is the FDNY not sweeping the building instead of the SS agent. Or at least send up the two guys in suits on "stand-by" overseeing FOX interviews to help. FOX reporter says "there is a lot of people on stand-by" so what up?


Edit to add:

Here is the video I mentioned Intrpt.



Edit to add: ...oops

edit on 15-2-2015 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


yes but my point is the towers were directly above the hotel yet it never fell, where as wtc7 was across the street and it did collapse.

After it burned for eight hours. Heres some NIST footage. The intensity of these fires was the same as in the World Trade and unchecked, they eventually compromised the support structures within the building. The only difference being the towers burned at the top while WTC burned down near the ground.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


what you are missing out is the fact there is extensive work carried out to weaken the building before collapse.

You mean like the fires from ten thousand gallons of gas that burned unchecked for an hour?

the fires from thousands of gallons of fuel that was nowhere near 10,000 gallons after the fireball and don't forget, we are supposed to believe that fuel cascaded down the elevator shafts (few of which ran the entire height of the building) to the lobby and basement. The rest would have burnt up rather quickly. It is likely the fuel wouldn't have pooled but would have formed a flammable mist. Now given that to date nobody has provided evidence that the fire proof cladding was torn from the steelwork (it was just accepted as fact when it isn't) and the fact the little fuel left would have spread through the building and burnt out rather quickly, it's quite absurd to believe the steel or the firs even reached the 600 degrees mark.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer


Nice try, but WRONG! The cement floors were not suspended inside a "tube". You must be aware of the huge core of the building that those floors were connected to.


The one acre, one foot thick cement floors were suspended between the core and the outside "skeleton" or "tube" of girders. The fire weakened the floor truss supports which initiated the collapse. Do you have an alternative suggestion for how the collapse began?

I'd love to hear that



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


the fires from thousands of gallons of fuel that was nowhere near 10,000 gallons after the fireball

Oh? How many gallons you figure started all that plastic furniture, carpets, and computers on fire after all the damage caused by the impact itself? Don't forget the windows being blown out so air could feed the flames which burned for an hour unchecked up at altitude.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You went everywhere with that response. Screw the media that was there. They never get anything right. If some firefighters figure the building was going to come down, its because they were there and could see the massive destruction, the destroyed fire fighting apparatus and missing fire fighters, the exhausted choking stunned firefighters, the lack of coordination, the fires, dust, smoke and confusion, it was a disaster area after all, and you cite some FOX news reporter?

By the way, I watched the second plane hit the tower live that morning and I could tell they were going to collapse, eventually.

Because I could see what was happening as it unfolded.

You believe FOX, do you believe me?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


Here is the video I mentioned Intrpt.

Ive seen it. I love that video. You imply what again based on this "lobby footage"?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


For the record intrptr I'm not trying to make out I am right and you are wrong or anything like that. Too often these discussions turn into childish point scoring contests. You may well be correct and I may well be wrong, just voicing my opinion as you are buddy

No problem. You are replying to me and I am presenting images and opinions that you may have not heard yet. I've been around here awhile and participated in many 911 threads. I have learned a thing or two and taught some others as well.

It would be of interest to me if you could also bring some evidence to back your claims in response to me.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

hard to define that , they look like bits of stoney/rocky debris to me ... what's the man in the middle of the picture doing with a dinner plate ? a bit on the macabre side considering

funbox



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


the fires from thousands of gallons of fuel that was nowhere near 10,000 gallons after the fireball

Oh? How many gallons you figure started all that plastic furniture, carpets, and computers on fire after all the damage caused by the impact itself? Don't forget the windows being blown out so air could feed the flames which burned for an hour unchecked up at altitude.
well like I said there is no evidence that the fire proofing was dislodged. If someone in the floor below the impact zone said the pictures on his desk shook and never fell to the floor, why should we believe the fire proof cladding was knocked from the steel frame?

Of 16 column panels examined by nist only three showed evidence of temperatures reaching 250 degrees. What's also interesting is the fact 16 survivors descended through the impact area without being incinerated. Ron di francesco actually went back up the the 91st and back down again. The office furnishings by nature have to be five retardant and either way do not have the ability to reach the temperatures that weaken steel. One page 184 of the nist report they state the fire would have burned for only minutes.


asymmetrical damage can not and will not cause a symmetrical collapse.

I'd like someone to point out how the sagging trusses could gather the strength to pull the structure apart, when it was stronger than the trusses actually were. There is no evidence the fires reached the temperatures needed and there is evidence that points to the contrary. There is no evidence of the fireproof cladding being removed and that was a key part of the official collapse theory but there is evidence that points to the contrary.

Each tower had roughly two million cubic yards of volume. The volume of the fuel at ten thousand gallons would have been around 50 cubic yards. Now take away a quarter of that (even though it was more like three quarters) for the fireball you are left with around 37 cubic yards. Now take in to account that the aircraft cut through three floors. You are left with about 12 cubic yards per floor. Then take in to account the amount of fuel needed to find its way down the elevator shafts and blow the lobby out. (I'll give you a hint..it's a lit more than 37 cubic yards).

there has been no explanation as to how that little amount of fuel could burn long enough or hot enough at the impact zone to weaken steel and destroy the elevator shafts and lobby at the same time. There was only one elevator shaft that ran the entire height of the building. The damage to the lobby has not been explained truthfully or correctly.


6 acres of marble. 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. 5 million sq. Ft. Of gypsum. All turned to dust?



Your average floor in the WTC towers. If it collapsed floor by floor. Where did all that go? What turned it into dust? Because it wasn't the weight and energy of the floors above.





edit on 06101642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)

edit on 43101642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)

edit on 32101642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
89
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join