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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 28
135
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne
No Vertical concrete reinforcement. All the core columns were however sprayed with fire proofing. This is what you see coming off of them as they fall.


I'm not so sure. Have you seen the 1992 article produced by Oxford University in which it says (my bold):


Modern skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core - a reinforced concrete tower - contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core, the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structure; a lightweight aluminium and glass curtain wall encloses the building.


It seems that in 1987 a documentary was made, broadcasted in 1990 by the PBS, in which the concrete cores were discussed also. Funny thing though: this documentary can not be found anywhere anymore. Rumours, maybe simply lies? I don't know. But however, the core did most certainly not consist of just steel beams: the core itself had floors made of concrete too, there were elevator shafts running inside it and these shafts themselves were guided by I beams. All in all a very rigid construction.


edit on 5-7-2015 by ForteanOrg because: he suffered from split concrete




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: waypastvne
No Vertical concrete reinforcement. All the core columns were however sprayed with fire proofing. This is what you see coming off of them as they fall.


I'm not so sure. Have you seen the 1992 article produced by Oxford University in which it says (my bold):


Modern skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core - a reinforced concrete tower - contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core, the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structure; a lightweight aluminium and glass curtain wall encloses the building.


It seems that in 1987 a documentary was made, broadcasted in 1990 by the PBS, in which the concrete cores were discussed also. Funny thing though: this documentary can not be found anywhere anymore. Rumours, maybe simply lies? I don't know. But however, the core did most certainly not consist of just steel beams: the core itself had floors made of concrete too, there were elevator shafts running inside it and these shafts themselves were guided by I beams. All in all a very rigid construction.



So what's your point? Rigid buildings with beams can collapse? Buildings with concrete can't collapse? Let's take your hypothesis. Building brought down by demolition. How many people do you think needed to know about this? Right. Big Larry at the top. Then the fire chief. Then maybe some building control guys who helped manage the building. Oh. Also the agency staff who would need to be rehoused while prep work was carried out. The mysterious planners whose names or reasoning we don't know. An actual demo team. Anyone else?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The issue that I have with this is that there is a lack of joined up thinking. If you want to claim conspiracy based on some youtube clips you need to explain the whole of 9/11 at the same time. So you need to explain wtc 1 and 2, the Pentagon and shanksville. You can't just look at a single area and say conspiracy. You need to explain the lot. And sadly for conspiracy fans that's what the OS does. It finds best case scenarios and builds an entirely plausible picture of events on that day. It's not perfect, because much of what happened is beyond our eyes. The damage to columns and beams, the fires we see or didn't. The actions of people on planes. The conspiracy falls apart so quickly when you ask the single question "How many people were involved in the planning and execution?" The number needs to be huge.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Here is my problem with building 7. It had fires on a few floors, that through thermal view was proven to NOT be hot enough to melt steel. The building wasn't hit by any plane. There was NO 'huge gouge' in the building as some have said.

Yet the building fell. Didn't topple over... didn't partially collapse. It completely fell.

So here is my problem... if we are to believe the "official story", then doesn't that pose a dramatic danger to all buildings built with similar construction? Especially because building 7 was not only a full girder design, but was significantly reinforced. So if we are to believe NIST (whom by the way won't even release the data on their computer sim), that the building fell due to structure fire.... then shouldn't like... HUNDREDS of buildings all over the world be looked over and retrofitted to prevent this? Yet we don't see that happening.....

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Let's take the entire trade center complex. 1, 2 & 7 collapsed. 3 was utterly destroyed by debris.. but didn't collapse. Building 4 was sliced in two.. but didn't collapse. The same goes for buildings 5 & 6. So why did 7 fall? 3,4,5 & 6 had MUCH more damage to them. Yet 7 managed to burn slightly for 6 hours and then free fall down into a neat little pile. Also being the first cleaned up.

Let's remember what was in building 7. It was the 2nd largest CIA office. Other tenants were the IRS and the DOD. What documents were stored in building 7? Tons of information regarding corporate fraud (Enron, etc). But come 9/11.. that all goes "poof" in a nice little collapse. Magically, the Pentagon was hit on the one side where the auditors were looking for that pesky missing $2.5 trillion dollars.

Take it for what its worth. But when you put all of the puzzle pieces together, you see the bigger picture. Who benefited from this tragedy? Who stood to gain? When you see.. you will understand that perhaps this isn't such a "crazy conspiracy".



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DerekJR321
Here is my problem with building 7. It had fires on a few floors, that through thermal view was proven to NOT be hot enough to melt steel. The building wasn't hit by any plane. There was NO 'huge gouge' in the building as some have said.

Yet the building fell. Didn't topple over... didn't partially collapse. It completely fell.

So here is my problem... if we are to believe the "official story", then doesn't that pose a dramatic danger to all buildings built with similar construction? Especially because building 7 was not only a full girder design, but was significantly reinforced. So if we are to believe NIST (whom by the way won't even release the data on their computer sim), that the building fell due to structure fire.... then shouldn't like... HUNDREDS of buildings all over the world be looked over and retrofitted to prevent this? Yet we don't see that happening.....

Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. Let's take the entire trade center complex. 1, 2 & 7 collapsed. 3 was utterly destroyed by debris.. but didn't collapse. Building 4 was sliced in two.. but didn't collapse. The same goes for buildings 5 & 6. So why did 7 fall? 3,4,5 & 6 had MUCH more damage to them. Yet 7 managed to burn slightly for 6 hours and then free fall down into a neat little pile. Also being the first cleaned up.

Let's remember what was in building 7. It was the 2nd largest CIA office. Other tenants were the IRS and the DOD. What documents were stored in building 7? Tons of information regarding corporate fraud (Enron, etc). But come 9/11.. that all goes "poof" in a nice little collapse. Magically, the Pentagon was hit on the one side where the auditors were looking for that pesky missing $2.5 trillion dollars.

Take it for what its worth. But when you put all of the puzzle pieces together, you see the bigger picture. Who benefited from this tragedy? Who stood to gain? When you see.. you will understand that perhaps this isn't such a "crazy conspiracy".



I'm on my phone so I can't link to photographs but there are plenty of photos showing damage to the face and the corner. There is enough fireman testimony to the damage. Steel doesn't need to melt. It just needs to get hot. Remember, this is the important part. 50% of strength at 500°c. That's a pretty crucial figure. It doesn't need to be 1000s of °c .

As for your second part I pose the question again. How many people need to be involved in the planning and execution?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
So what's your point?


My point is that pulverising a core built of steel AND concrete takes a lot more energy than a core built of just steel. To rip these cores apart the bolts needed to be sufficiently strong to tear both the concrete and the steel reinforcement AND the floors AND the elevator shafts into shrivels.


Let's take your hypothesis. Building brought down by demolition.


Nope, that was not my hypothesis. Any method of putting additional energy in the process. Alien rays.


edit on 5-7-2015 by ForteanOrg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
So what's your point?


My point is that pulverising a core built of steel AND concrete takes a lot more energy than a core built of just steel. To rip these cores apart the bolts needed to be sufficiently strong to tear both the concrete and the steel reinforcement AND the floors AND the elevator shafts into shrivels.


Let's take your hypothesis. Building brought down by demolition.


Nope, that was not my hypothesis. Any method of putting additional energy in the process. Alien rays.



Ok. Forget the how then cos that line is beyond help. Tell me the who and why?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
You can't just look at a single area and say conspiracy. You need to explain the lot.


I believe I did just that when I stated that this was a final warning from our alien allies to stop stealing their technology. They gave the government notice what they were going to do and when. They then did it. Our Government had a hard time to come up with a halfway decent cover story. The aliens don't care what story is being told, they simply issued a warning. Our alien friends think that they are far superiour to us (and they are, though even more so in their own minds). So, the buildings were simply destroyed by the alien tractor beams, just as they said they would do. They also shot a hole in the Pentagon, just as they said they would do. That's it, that's all there is to it.

All the rest is fakery and trickery, meant to make the public believe that some boxcutter waving beardos did all this.

You choose which of the 2 stories fits your needs.
edit on 5-7-2015 by ForteanOrg because: he spelled issues instead of issued



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
You can't just look at a single area and say conspiracy. You need to explain the lot.


I believe I did just that when I stated that this was a final warning from our alien allies to stop stealing their technology. They gave the government notice what they were going to do and when. They then did it. Our Government had a hard time to come up with a halfway decent cover story. The aliens don't care what story is being told, they simply issued a warning. Our alien friends think that they are far superiour to us (and they are, though even more so in their own minds). So, the buildings were simply destroyed by the alien tractor beams, just as they said they would do. They also shot a hole in the Pentagon, just as they said they would do. That's it, that's all there is to it.

All the rest is fakery and trickery, meant to make the public believe that some boxcutter waving beardos did all this.

You choose which of the 2 stories fits your needs.


Can't tell if serious or not....



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

See my previous post.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

See my previous post.


I'll leave you to it then. Enjoy the tin foil look.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

You're not supposed to be able to tell if I'm serious or not, nor will anything I write or say convince you one way or the other. Pick any theory that makes you feel comfortable, it does not matter. In all cases, we need to find out if the events on 9/11 could have happened as they did without the help of an additional energy source.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

- come on, this IS a "Tin foil" forum, didn't you know..



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


I'm not so sure.



Now you're sure.




Quote:
My response to your query comes with the preamble I am the Engineer-of-Record for the structure of the two towers of the World Trade Center. That is, I was the Chief Engineer for the design of both of the towers, and all of the drawings carry my professional seal and signature. Further, I was in responsible charge of our quality assurance operations for the construction work and, subsequent to the construction, of our on-going designs for structural alterations.

From time to time persons have written to me stating that the two towers were constructed with reinforced concrete cores. Without reservation I am able to state that, for the both of the two towers:

- From the very earliest inception of structural design, concrete cores were not considered as a viable option.

- The architects (including Mr. Minoru Yamasaki) and our client, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, never asked that concrete cores be incorporated into the design or the construction of the toweres.

- From the lowest basement to the roof, concrete cores were never shown in the drawings for the design or for the construction of the two towers.

- Concrete cores were not constructed.

- Evidence of concrete cores cannot be found in construction photographs.

- Following the tragic events of September 11, debris from concrete cores was not found in the field.

Irresponsible persons have generated material, even a letter falsely purported to have been signed by me, indicating that concrete cores were a part of the World Trade Center. The motives for such assertions is beyond my ken.

Of course, responsible persons, perhaps without a proper choice of words, may state or may have stated that concrete cores were a part of the design and/or construction of the two towers. Such statements are not based on fact. Where by responsible persons, I can only believe that such statements were or are made incidental to the discussion and without the intention of certifying in any way that concrete cores were in any way a part of the design or the construction of either of the two towers.


Regards,

Leslie Earl Robertson, P.E., S.E., Chartered Engineer (U.K. and Ireland)

First Class Architect and Engineer (Japan)


edit on 5-7-2015 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


Irresponsible persons have generated material, even a letter falsely purported to have been signed by me, indicating that concrete cores were a part of the World Trade Center. The motives for such assertions is beyond my ken


He might just as well have written:


Irresponsible persons have generated material, even a letter falsely purported to have been signed by me, indicating that concrete cores were NOT a part of the World Trade Center. The motives for such assertions is beyond my ken


So, how do we know that this letter was indeed written by this man?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

So, how do we know that this letter was indeed written by this man?


How do i know that you wrote that. It could have been anybody.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerekJR321
But when you put all of the puzzle pieces together, you see the bigger picture.


Is this the bigger picture you are talking about ?



Everyone will eventually know that al-Qaeda never existed, acted under the control of the US Government and acted on its own initiative but with the passive complicity of the US Government to hijack planes, not hijack planes and try but fail to hijack planes, that the US Government, a small rogue element within the US Government, and Mossad operating without the knowledge of the US Government crashed the planes into the towers under remote control, crashed different planes into the towers undeer remote control, didn't crash any planes into the towers but projected holograms of the planes crashing into the towers, and didn't crash or project anything but convinced everyone that planes hit the towers by showing it to them on TV, after which the towers were blown up by explosives that made lots of explosions that everybody heard, weakened by thermite silently which explains why nobody heard any explosions, blown up by nuclear weapons in the cellar which started collapses from the top, and turned entirely to dust by energy beams from space which is why there was no debris, and that the debris pile was then kept hot for months by thermite that hadn't reacted when it all reacted to bring the towers down, and all the steel that wasn't there was immediately taken to China which is why the steel recovered shows signs of explosives, melting and dustification, and a plane, a missile, a different plane and a hologram all crashed into the Pentagon except that it was only one of them, or pulled up at the last second and flew over the Pentagon, leaving a neat 12 foot hole that caused 90 feet of the bit of the wall that had recently been reinforced to collapse, and another plane was shot down at Shanksville then landed in Cleveland leaving no wreckage at Shanksville that was spread out over too large an area to be from a crash even though it didn't exist. That's what really happened, and some day everyone will figure out how obvious it all is.

Dave Rogers




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru "How many people were involved in the planning and execution?" The number needs to be huge.


2 words. manhattan project. huge secrets can and have been kept, the grand design unbeknownst to many of those involved. compartmentalization and all that



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: scottyirnbru "How many people were involved in the planning and execution?" The number needs to be huge.


2 words. manhattan project. huge secrets can and have been kept, the grand design unbeknownst to many of those involved. compartmentalization and all that


Well not a very good example. Over 100,000 people were employed on that and it wasn't exactly a secret that the allies and the axis were chasing a nuclear weapon.

However for this arguments sake we'll go with your compartmental theory. So all these compartments undertook little tasks. After the event the people in charge of say remote control boeing 767s didn't spot that perhaps their work had been corrupted? The team of chaps who'd planted explosive devices didn't think later "hey, that wasn't for just in case at all!" At no point in the following 14 years has a single compartment leaked or broken. They've all managed to stay so silent and ignore the heroes welcome they'd receive for selling out the government.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne

Yes, indeed, anybody that has my password. Tha'ts called 'identity theft' and it occurs much more often than one thinks.

Now, for the 'concrete was never used' statement: please check out this video and tell me what it is you see in the video, roughly 16 seconds into it:



That, to me, does not look like a steel framework. I'd say it is the concrete core that does not exist according to you. But maybe you are right - then, what is that that we see there?

Note how that core stands there - magnificent concrete - and then suddenly dissolves into nothingness. Alien ray, I tell you




top topics



 
135
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join