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.

 

Just Wondering...

page: 32
29
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Real experts who know better do not see it your way and rightly so.



WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2,


The bowing was proof that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Buckling was noted on WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 just before they collapsed.

To continue:



Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.


ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.


A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

www.debunking911.com...


EFFECT OF SUPPORT CONDITIONS ON STEEL BEAMS EXPOSED OF FIRE

Department of Civil Engineering
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand

1. Introduction
1.1 General

Structural steel has been widely used throughout the world. It is one of a designer’s best
options in view of its advantages over other materials. Steel is available in a range of discrete
size, and its ductile behaviour allows plastic deformation upon yielding, therefore avoiding
brittle failures.

In reinforced concrete structures, steel enhances the concrete strength by
carrying the tensile forces. It is also commonly used to reinforce timber constructions.
In spite of its advantages, steel on its own is vulnerable in fire.

Elevated temperatures in the steel cause reduction in its strength and stiffness which eventually leads to failure due to
excessive deformations. This is crucial in steel in compared with concrete or timber members
as steel conducts heat very well and often comes in thin or slender elements.


2.4.2 Steel design at elevated temperature

There are a few modifications to be considered when designing structures for fire conditions
although the concepts are similar to those for the ambient condition. Most of the material
properties change with temperature, the strength is reduced upon heating and thermal
expansion may induce internal forces that lead to structural failure with various mechanisms
depending on the type of supports, connections and structural arrangements.

Instability failure also needs to be considered even though the structure still has adequate
strength. The applied loads for fire design are less due to very low probability of the event
occurring when the structure is fully loaded at its maximum capacity, therefore a smaller
safety factor is acceptable.

www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz...


edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Nova937



So, firefightersfor911truth, pilotsfor911truth, ae911truth etc are all bogus websites


Yes they are because they conflict with the true facts and evidence uncovered at ground zero. For an example, the founder of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", Rob Balsamo, and I, went head-to-head after I caught him posting false and misleading information, disinformation and lies. Others have noticed that he was posted bad information as well. I don't think that he knew that I had over 40 years flying experience under my belt, which is how I was able to determined that he was not playing with a full deck.


...with no members posting facts and figures regarding 9/11 and the "Thousands" that don't agree with the OS are all incorrect?

Let's take a look at the real numbers because truthers do not have as much support as they think. Check it out.



WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2,


The bowing was proof that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Buckling was noted on WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 just before they collapsed.



Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.


edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: Text Failure



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen



Well, to Skys credit, he was do'in a lot of cutting and pasting from modern
literature that affirms the lies he chooses to believe. As if there wouldn't
be any lies out there that wouldn't affirm the OS.


Experience allows me to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

Once again, my own experience in the world of aviation allowed me to catch Rob Balsamo, founder of 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' deliberately posting false and misleading information, disinformation and lies.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen



I wonder if anyone has noticed that he has copied and pasted the exact same things numerous times or if they think he's actually doing work over there and researching things?


Seems some truthers haven't gotten the message the first time around, which is why they post the same debunked messages time and time again. Do I need to go back and post examples?

BTW, did any truther accept my challenge to review the WTC 7 video and highlight any time lines where they think demolition explosions are heard? If not, when can we get started?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: tigertatzen



I wonder if anyone has noticed that he has copied and pasted the exact same things numerous times or if they think he's actually doing work over there and researching things?


Seems some truthers haven't gotten the message the first time around, which is why they post the same debunked messages time and time again. Do I need to go back and post examples?

BTW, did any truther accept my challenge to review the WTC 7 video and highlight any time lines where they think demolition explosions are heard? If not, when can we get started?


Nothing has been debunked! Did you not get that message?

And as far as WTC-7 is concerned that one was the most obvious demolition jobs. You can't debunk the fact that the basement of WTC-7 was taken out with explosives before any of the towers fell. Fire Fighters and Barry Jennings testimonies should have convinced you of that.

84% of Americans say 9/11 was an inside job. They don't believe the "Jet Fuel" BS either. But you believe it!

Oh and John Kerry admitted that WTC-7 was as they say in Demolition 'Pulled'.





Hold the phone! Did that last video show explosives? Yes it did. But why is it only that video that shows explosives taking out WTC-7? Is it because all the media videos released showed the collapse from the other side where it wasn't so obvious for viewing the charges going off?

Hmmmm



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Nova937



www.youtube.com...

Hold the phone! Did that last video show explosives? Yes it did. But why is it only that video that shows explosives taking out WTC-7?


Apparently, you were taken for a ride to the cleaners because that video did NOT show evidence of explosives and the fact that you posted a hoaxed video of WTC 7 is a another example of why the Truth Movement has made itself look like a clown.

Didn't you even notice that the image of WTC 7 is a reversed-mirror image, which clearly proved the video you posted was a hoax? In fact, I posted the rest of the story of that video just the other day, but it seems that you missed it, so here it is again and next time, do some real homework for a change before you post more hoaxed videos and photos.

Now, take a look at the rest of the story and meet the guy who hoaxed the video you posted.

WTC 7 Hoaxed Video

By the way, "pull" does not relate to "explosive demolition" in the demolition community, it relates to the use of cables to "pull" down buildings. Check out time line 1:30 in the video to see how it is done.

How to pull down buildings with cables



edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree




Yeah the lobby didn't explode. The firefighters just thought it did. Boy they sure are silly.



This is the most infuriating aspect of the whole issue...all these "experts" saying it can't be true, that nothing like this happened. Veteran firefighters who work in a city where fires of all types are common (in August of 2011 there had been 253 serious fire incidents city-wide), can't accurately identify an explosion when they hear one? Poppycock.

The very fact that after interviewing them, NIST failed to include their accounts in their report speaks volumes. They've got experienced professional firefighters who have been trained to listen and look for unanticipated dangers. All it takes is one misstep or failure to pay attention to detail to mortally injure someone fighting a fire, yet after hearing their testimonies and putting them through what amounted to an interrogation, they omitted that valuable info from the report. The only reason they would do something like that is if they couldn't force these people to lie, and could not legally detain them...cover ups are tricky like that, right?

I have a very hard time believing that something falling could be mistaken for an explosion, even by people who don't have experience with things like that. An explosion sounds nothing like heavy objects hitting a floor. It is distinctive.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

lol hoaxed video? All it is is a video from the other side. Shills on youtube said it was a hoaxed video to throw off the people wanting to see the truth! And you believe the shills I see!

You speak a load of blah blah blah mate!

Because in Demolition speak it DOES mean to demolish a building. I know Demolition people and that is exactly what Pull means!



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Nova937

NO. He was saying pull something else. YOU know...his thing....yeah pull it!



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

That's all he wants pulled. I'm not stupid! I can see a BS cover-up when I see it. The OS looks like it's been aimed at idiots. My brothers believe it but all because the OS version of events is all they have seen and actually want to see then that's all they will believe.

There are 2 sides 2 every story. And with 9/11 there are loads of sides. But with WTC-7 there are 2. And with the backside collapse there are detonators. But with him it's a mirror image. Shills said that too but it's not a mirror image. Pity he just believes the shills like my brothers who just believe the OS!



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen



This is the most infuriating aspect of the whole issue...all these "experts" saying it can't be true, that nothing like this happened. Veteran firefighters who work in a city where fires of all types are common (in August of 2011 there had been 253 serious fire incidents city-wide), can't accurately identify an explosion when they hear one? Poppycock.


Hearing what sounded like an explosion doesn't automatically translate into explosives.

According to some of the firefighters during an NBC news interview, the later determined that the explosions were exploding gas lines, which had nothing to do with explosives. Other firefighters said this:

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

* Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

Other firefighters:

* We figured by the time we got to the fifth or sixth floor, that’s when the south tower was hit. I had no idea the south tower was hit, and I don’t think that Chief Jonas – Captain Jonas at the time – or Lieutenant Foti knew at that point either. I remember the whole north tower literally vibrated...I had no idea that the south tower was hit.

* "As we got near the top of the escalator that brings you to ground level from five floors below, we heard what sounded like a bomb going off," Seebode said. "It was the second plane hitting World Trade Center."

* It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

* ...there were about ten explosions...At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

graphics8.nytimes.com...


August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in "several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn" on 9/11. He says they did not show the "spikes" that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.implosionworld.com...


As I have correctly asserted, no one heard explosions attributable to explosives.


edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Experience allows me to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.



Too bad it doesn't allow you to know when to walk away.




Seems some truthers haven't gotten the message the first time around, which is why they post the same debunked messages time and time again. Do I need to go back and post examples?



For the love of all that is sacred and holy, spare us your examples. You've repeated yourself enough, and no amount of spamming the thread with duplicate (times infinity) copy and paste jobs is going to change anything.

There is plenty of evidence that supports we "truthers'" theories, while by contrast the official story is full of holes. The only thing that has continued to be "debunked" consistently is the BS official fairy tale, and you want to know why? Look at your posts. You've only got a couple dance moves. Posting the same thing over and over and over because you have nothing else of value to add to the discussion...like a really, really bad song playing on repeat. But hey, it's good for a giggle at least, right?



BTW, did any truther accept my challenge to review the WTC 7 video and highlight any time lines where they think demolition explosions are heard? If not, when can we get started?


Why? So you can spam some more? You've contradicted yourself over and over again; first it was: no one heard explosions and there are none on audio. Then, when someone posted a video that clearly had sounds of explosions, you suddenly changed your story. You said it was falling elevators or something equally ludicrous. You ask a question and then when an answer is given to you, you change the question.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Question is, why are truthers repeating the same false claims over and over that have been addressed and debunked with undeniable evidence?



There is plenty of evidence that supports we "truthers'" theories,


That is false and I have had to correct truthers on many occasions when I caught them posting hoaxed videos and photos. Just today, I caught a truther posting a hoaxed video of WTC 7, the same hoaxed video I posted the other day to make my point that truthers have a habit of posting hoaxed videos and photos and disinformation as well. What better way to discredit truthers than to let them do it themselves.
edit on 1-



You've contradicted yourself over and over again;


That is false as well and your attempt to distort the facts in this case is typical of the way truthers do business. Now, how about addressing my challenge to post the time line in the WTC 7 video where you think that explosions are heard.

It seems to me that truthers are afraid to take up my challenge to do so.

edit on 1-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


When Presented with the Truth, Those in Denial Become Angry, Indignant, Offended, and Ridicule the Messenger

None of want to feel helpless and vulnerable. So, we want to defend ourselves. And, the way that we often do that is with anger. Then we become angry. And, when we become angry, then we become indignant. We become offended. We want to ridicule the messenger. We want to pathologize the messenger. And, we want to censor the messenger.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
Just today, I caught a truther posting a hoaxed video of WTC 7


What does it matter if it's a hoax video, it's not going to change the fact that 911 was an inside job.

No matter how far you push, you aren't aren't going to change that fact either.
edit on 1-8-2015 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Hearing what sounded like an explosion doesn't automatically translate into explosives.

According to some of the firefighters during an NBC news interview, the later determined that the explosions were exploding gas lines, which had nothing to do with explosives. Other firefighters said this:


Well, logic dictates that if you hear an explosion it has to have been caused by something that explodes, right? Firefighters know the difference. Speaking of which, the number of firefighters who never changed their story and maintained that they did indeed hear explosions is far larger than your little list of those who did change their stories.




Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in "several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn" on 9/11. He says they did not show the "spikes" that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

www.implosionworld.com...


We have already had this discussion...what, you forgot which load of crap you posted? Or are you still just recycling all of the loads of crap and forgot to rotate them out? Either way, I have already responded to that nonsense but I'll say it again, so try to pay attention:

1) Seismic readings in every recording station within 20 miles of the event showed significant seismic activity, including spikes, directly before each collapse. This is data that is irrefutable. 2) Blanchard and his colleagues receive substantial government funding, so anything he says is automatically suspect...however, he stated in his report (you know, the one you like to trot out even though you obviously failed to take the time to read it yourself) that they could not say what caused the collapse of WTC7 and did not include it in his report because of that, and throughout that same report, he never says that they are 100% sure about any of it. In fact, he is very careful to remain as neutral as possible with his findings, and I am sure that's because he sold out to the government and is ashamed of doing so.

You are omitting facts and twisting words to suit your purpose without bothering to actually verify anything, and you are trying to pretend that you are some type of experienced expert, when in your other posts you told us (more than a few times, true to form) that you are actually just an airplane mechanic, and the last time I checked, that doesn't come anywhere near being a demolitions expert. The problem with deception is that once you tell a lie, you've got to tell another one to cover it and so on...pretty soon, you start to forget which one you've already told, and you start to trip yourself up. It is far better to quit while you think you're ahead.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant




* Note the new owner of the WTC Larry Silverstein, who made billions on the extra insurance he took out just prior to 9/11, saying they decided to “pull it” – clear demolition language.





www.zengardner.com...


No steel building had ever collapsed from fires ever before 9/11. Nor have any since nor have new restrictions been applied. Yet on that day 3 major landmarks came straight down at freefall speed. Not only that, but the twin towers were so pulverized that nothing identifiable was in the rubble except a few small fragments. No furniture, appliances, carpeting, nothing.


There is much more to read if you care to do so.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
This is significant.



Pilots are smart people so I'm pretty sure the fact that there is a
" Pilots for 911 truth "? Engineers, architects, firefighters etc.
is pretty much the nail in the OS coffin.
edit on Rpm80115v27201500000040 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Just today, I caught a truther posting a hoaxed video of WTC 7, the same hoaxed video I posted the other day to make my point that truthers have a habit of posting hoaxed videos and photos and disinformation as well.


You "caught" a "truther"? So now you're some kind of internet police too? Your resume must be a real humdinger with all of these hats you say you wear. So, it was ok for you to post a "hoax" video but it's not ok for anyone else to post the same one? Ohhhh...yes, of course...my bad, you were only doing it to trick one of those pesky "truthers" into falling for your devious trap. Aren't you the clever one...now if you could come up with something that you haven't said 50 times already...wait...oh, no, nope my bad again...you can't, because you don't have anything else. I forgot. Carry on then.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



It seems I have to continue to present evidence as if a wall would listen to me, but what the heck...




What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them as it goes? Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton’s third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join