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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

page: 18
27
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
And just to remind everyone,
the first eye witness & first responder
reports, were of Explosions.
Lots and lots and lots
of Explosions.
youtu.be...




posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak



And just to remind everyone,
the first eye witness & first responder
reports, were of Explosions.
Lots and lots and lots
of Explosions.
youtu.be...


Manhole explosions are very common in New York City and in some cases, have set vehicles on fire. I might also add that there is not one shred of evidence that the explosions had anything to do with explosives. Check it out.



THERE ARE OVER 2,000 MANHOLE FIRES/EXPLOSIONS EACH YEAR IN NYC. UNDERGROUND CABLES BECOME FRAYED FROM SNOW/ICE MELTING CHEMICALS, AGING, CORROSIVE CHEMICALS, OVERLOAD OR RATS BITING THEM

metroforensics.blogspot.com...


Over 2000 explosions in New York City each year! That is why I have stated for the record that the sound of explosions is not automatic evidence that an explosives were responsible.


edit on 24-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak



Booms Flashes and Squibs
would be much easier to see
and HEAR if it weren't for that
darn 1/4 mile high 3 mile wide
pyroclastic cloud .
Instantly turning 500,000 tons of building
to powder makes for incredible sound insulation.


You can't mask the sound of explosions because explosions can be heard miles away. The squibs are nothing ore than compressed air, and that has nothing to do with explosives. Case in point can be found in these photos. Notice the squibs and understand that explosives are not used in this type of demolition, yet the squibs are there for all to see.

Phorto 1: Squibs

Photo 2: Squibs

Please explain why a bomb failed to turn this building into dust.

Photo: Bombed Building




edit on 24-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

It is clearly evident that no demo detonations occurred as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed and the fact that there are no secondary explosions as those buildings collapsed.

What it take to prepare a small building for demolition. The sound of demo explosions you don't hear as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapse.

[
edit on 24-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak


The "booms" would be before the cloud was created. Thanks for playing.
edit on 24-9-2015 by cardinalfan0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
this really grinds my gears.

in fact i came across an article yesterday, where the author applied the usual tactic of not confronting any of the real evidence, but instead used blatantly judgemental language to describe anybody who denies the official story; labelling them 'kooky' 'paranoid' 'lunacy' 'far-fetched'. it's sly additions of words like this that seek to apply negative connotations to any 911 or other conspiracy theorists, linking it with paranoia and craziness. oldest trick in the book. obvious subliminal programming.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Redlisted

Recently, I made a reference to a hoaxed video of WTC 7 and just days later, two conspiracy theorist posted that same hoaxed video as their evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Simply amazing!!



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
pfft. if you look at the photos of wtc 7 it had like two very small fires. hardly going to make a steel building collapse.

fact is the only skyscrapers who've ever fallen because of fire is the wtc. it's literally never happened and there's been far worse fires in skyscrapers than that. why didn't they fall?

explain all these things:

Rapid onset of destruction,
Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.


how did they collapse in symmetrical fashion when the damage was not symmetrical?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Redlisted



Rapid onset of destruction,...


That was expected considering that fire began to buckle the steel columns of the WTC buildings just prior to their collapse.



Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,


Let's take a look here to see if WTC 1, WTC2, and WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall speed.



To sum it up, the WTC buildings did not collapse at near free fall speed.


Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,


Their accounts were later attributed to things that had nothing to do with explosives. There were vehicles on fire with fuel in their gas tanks and fire fighters later attributed the sounds they heard to collapsing floors and exploding gas lines.



Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,


Explosives were not responsible. Case in point. Why are these steel columns of WTC 1 standing within a huge bomb crater after the 1993 bomb attack?

Photo: WTC 1 Steel Columns Standing witin Huge Bomb Crater

Photo: Why is this Bombed Building Still Standing?

Now, let's take a look at his video of a demolition operation that doesn't use explosives and notice how debris are flung laterally.




Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,


If you reviewed the previous video I've posted, you will see the same effects.


...Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”


Since the interior of a building is mostly air, that air was compressed and had to go somewhere. Here is a video of the verinage demoliton that doesn't require the use of explosives and notice the squibs.

Photo: Squibs of Air from Building; No Explosives Used


Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile, ...


On the contrary, debris from the collapsing of the WTC buildings damaged surround buildings as well. WTC 7 was damaged by debris from WTC 1.


Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,


There was no molten steel at ground zero. In addition, but have identified molten aluminum as it was flowing out of the northeast corner of WTC 2. That was the location where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.



Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.


Such microspheres were expected to be found in the rubble due to the raging fires. Such microspheres can be created using a lighter and steel wool, or by placing a steel beam into a barrel of burning wood.





Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,


These photos have been used by conspiracy theorist as proof of thermite cuts on steel beams.

Photo 1: Cut Steel Beam

Photo 2: Cut Steel Beams

Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story of how those cuts were truly made. Jump to time line 1:25 in the following video.



Beware of those 9/11 conspiracy theorist websites that have been duping the unknowing for years.
edit on 15-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
it defies the laws of physics. there is no way three of the sturdiest buildings would fall down just due to two measly aeroplane fires. other buildings have survived far worse.

The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did. Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly.


WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower ‘unzipping’ along one side of a damaged floor. Unless the other sides simultaneously ‘unzipped’ there was no way that the tower would have ‘pancaked’ onto it’s own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.

NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modelled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

Maybe an extremely hot fire burning for 24 hours could've done it, but they burned for 2 hours! Lesser structures have burned for upwards of 20 hours and been fine.

In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's family organizations that are saying the same thing.

The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired.

In conclusion, FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened.

An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence. If you're so sure the story is solid, and the government should be too, a subpoena should be no worries mate.


Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.



The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.



The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.


edit on 15-10-2015 by Redlisted because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2015 by Redlisted because: (no reason given)



Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. [/img]



The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases -- one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium, and thus had the hollowness that the 9-11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers.





edit on 15-10-2015 by Redlisted because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Redlisted



it defies the laws of physics. there is no way three of the sturdiest buildings would fall down just due to two measly aeroplane fires. other buildings have survived far worse.


Let's take a look here.

Steel Frame Hangar Collapse on Private Jet after Fire

Now, the story of that incident.



Santa Monica Airport crash

A private jet veered off the runway and slammed into a hangar at Santa Monica Airport, sparking a fire that consumed the airplane and caused the hangar to collapse. There were no survivors.

www.latimes.com...


In regard to those other steel frame buildings that were on fire, how many were struck by a B-767? How many had their steel structures encased in concrete? How many retained their fire protection during those fires? The steel structures of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were directly exposed to the full effects of fires that raged out of control.

Why did the steel structure of the Windsor building In Spain collapse due to fire while its concrete structure remained standing?

Now, let's take a look here.



Kader Toy Factory Fire

At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast... Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 15-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

analysis of the engineering/architecture firm that designed wtc 7 of it's sturdiness


The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.



The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.



Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there




THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE

edit on 15-10-2015 by Redlisted because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Redlisted



analysis of the engineering/architecture firm that designed wtc 7 of it's sturdiness


And yet, no evidence of explosives or thermite was ever found and you can even ask the FDNY. They will tell you that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage caused by debris from WTC 1, not from explosives nor thermite.



The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time.


A B-707 at slow airspeed, not a B-767 slamming into those buildings at 500 knots, which stripped those buildings of their fire protection.


edit on 15-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s:

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity: 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight:328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Therefore the differences in airplane type makes no statistical difference and there's no way those towers could've all fallen on their own. the chances of all three? 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000!


edit on 15-10-2015 by Redlisted because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2015 by Redlisted because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Redlisted

The structural engineers did not take into an account that the collision would create the devastation caused by the B-767 impacts, which is why they have stated for the record that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collasse of the WTC buildings. Check it out.



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.

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and thecenter steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...

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.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

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 World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

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


Nothing in their reports that explosives or even thermite, were responsible. They all placed the blame on fire, in conjunction with impact damage, for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
edit on 15-10-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   


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:


In fact, Blanchard's treatment of the issues he addresses is anything but scientific. Blanchard:

Provides no evidence to support most of his assertions.
Repeatedly invokes a privileged body of evidence and ignores the vast body of public evidence.
Excludes possibilities out of hand, cherry-picking a few issues to address.
Relies on flat denials, such as his assertion that there is no evidence of explosives use.
Exploits fallacies such as appeals to authority and appeals to prejudice.
Promotes common misconceptions, such as that demolitions must proceed from the ground up.

Confusing Evidence for Explosives with Evidence for Demolition

Blanchard makes repeated assertions that there is no evidence of explosives. That is arguable, given the unexplained sulfidation of steel, multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples, and multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult to explain absent high explosives.

911research.wtc7.net...



Here, Blanchard admits that the Towers mushroomed, with 95% of the debris falling outside the footprints. But that being the case invalidates the official account -- at least NIST's version of it -- in which the "tremendous energy of the falling building section" is supposed to have crushed the buildings from the crash zones down.

With the vast majority of rubble falling outside of the Tower, where is this alleged 'pile-driver'? The visual records show no evidence of the "falling building section" after the first three seconds of each event, only exploding clouds of dust and metal fragments.
edit on 15-10-2015 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



Confusing Evidence for Explosives with Evidence for Demolition

Blanchard makes repeated assertions that there is no evidence of explosives.....


That is easily proven by the fact that demo explosions were not heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, which explains why no evidence of demo explosions were detected on seismic machines.


... That is arguable, given the unexplained sulfidation of steel, multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples, and multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult to explain absent high explosives.


That is not evidence that thermite brought down the WTC buildings. Conspiracy theorist claimed this was evidence of thermite reaction.

Photo: Claim this steel beam was cut by thermite

That steel beam was cut by clean-up workers.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   


That is not evidence that thermite brought down the WTC buildings. Conspiracy theorist claimed this was evidence of thermite reaction.


No it's not, and not all do.. so whats your point, you have none..



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   


That is easily proven by the fact that demo explosions were not heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed,


Only to you, seems other people have something else to say, you were not there so you have no say in the matter..



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



nly to you, seems other people have something else to say, you were not there so you have no say in the matter


Then, my challenge to you is for you to post the time lines in these videos where demo explosions are heard. Failing to do so, you have no case. Now, let's get stared.



You would have noticed that debris outpaced the collapse of WTC 1, which debunks the claim that WTC 1 fell at near free fall speed. Now, let's take a look at WTC 2.



Did you hear demo explosions in that video? If so, post the time lines.

And now, WTC 7.



As a reminder what demo explosions sound like.



I am expecting you to post the time lines that I have requested.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join