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 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

page: 30
135
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's a valid point and quite honestly depending on who you speak to, can go either way.

What they didn't factor in the testing requirements is that fireproofing would be blown off the steel and trusses from a high speed impact, leaving them greatly exposed to direct heat, increasing their temperature and therefore deflection. This truss deflection pulled the trusses inward toward the elevator core as they buckled. Thus pulling the exterior structure with it just enough to cause a buckle in the exterior supports, that's all it would take for catastrophic failure. One floor can not withstand the kinetic force of the rest and it pancaked down.
Jets at that altitude are usually taking off or landing not operating at high altitude speeds, such as what happened. Fireproofing was never tested for high impact durability.

These are basically the parameters used but since there is no prior precedent to this event many engineers I've spoken to feel one way or another. Most believe what happened happened, the way it did happen, without the need for extra demolishions. Simply if it was just a fire or a low speed jet crash, they would still be there.

But again, I feel the government had involvement in this already. I no longer need the proof to assume guilty by a number of factors. Even if we did have the proof pinning this on an agency or more directly a person(s), it would be next to impossible due to our judicial system and lack of direct, corroborating evidence. It would be easier to go and punch god in the face!
edit on 9/16/2015 by AnteBellum because: add




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum



Simply if it was just a fire or a low speed jet crash, they would still be there.


Low speed jet crash? Time to take a look at this video and see if American 11 was flying at low speed.



Judging by the sound of those high by-pass engines, American 11 struck WTC1 at high speed, not low speed.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
I never believe the airplane crash into the WTC was the cause of bring down the Towers. The Engineers over design the WTC, just encase this happened.


The impacts got the ball rolling. Structural loads were redistributed and fire finished off the job.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Re-read what I wrote, I'm well aware of the high speeds they collided at.

Also if anyone would like to understand this better you can get a general idea in your kitchen.
Take an empty paper towel roll(unbent) and place a bag of sugar on top, like a tower it should hold.
Now do it again but first bend the paper towel roll once, it will fail at the bend and fall over.

In a nutshell in simplest form this is what happened to both buildings - but NOT building 7!

Building 7 failed at ground level, directly in the worst possible location causing the roof to cave in(lower floor central columns). At that point all lower structural columns failed simultaniously sending the building in a whole, symetrical state to collapse. This has never happened in recorded history except under precise demolition supervision through use of time, planning, weakening and explosives.
It's almost as blatent as it gets, nothing failed in the location of the fires, everything happened at the same lower level. If it wasn't pulled we all witnessed a miracle.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I am not interested in the OS. I don't believe in it and no one has convince me it is true.
What you say happened, did not happen.
There is nothing that I find true from NIST period, NIST sold their reputation and their souls for 3 million dollars and concocted a pseudo Report. The fact is NIST report does not stand up to real science.
I am just letting you know, so you don't waste your time.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



I am not interested in the OS. I don't believe in it and no one has convince me it is true.


I do. I knew that 9/11 was not a false flag operation because countries around the world were warning the United States that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would carry out the attack.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum



Building 7 failed at ground level, directly in the worst possible location causing the roof to cave in(lower floor central columns).


What do you supposed caused the collapse since it has been proven that explosives and thermite were not responsible?



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
It's quite evident that Israel and agencies used the 911 war games as cover to make the attack a success. They obviously used this false flag as a means to launch wars against g Afghanistan and iraq



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11



t's quite evident that Israel and agencies used the 911 war games as cover to make the attack a success. They obviously used this false flag as a means to launch wars against g Afghanistan and iraq


That is false. First of all, we warned the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden unconditionally, but the Taliban failed to do so and the rest is history. Had they turned over bin Laden, there would not have been a war. We didn't invade Afghanistan when bin Laden bombed the USS Cole. We didn't invade Afghanistan when bin Laden bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

In regard to Iraq, the United States and the UN had the authority to take action against Iraq since Iraq was in violation of 16 UN resolutions and for breaking agreements that ended the first Gulf War. Those were the only excuses we needed to go back into Iraq.

You break a contract, you pay the price.

edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sovan
Siverstain.

Mossaud.
woukdnt doubt it evidence seems to point to it



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
S&F


In all the years I have researched 911, this is new information and now supports evidence of demolition in the WTC's.
Has anyone sent this information to A&E?

This will back up their technical papers of demolition.

Not only is this credible, the photos are a slam dunk proving hundreds of fuse holders were in the WTC. This alone would hold up in any court room as evidence.

There is no reason for anyone to have fuse holders in the WTC unless they were going to demolish the buildings.

I always suspected Dick Chaney had something to do with being one of the terrorist who helped plot 911 and now we find out that Halliburton had their dirty hands in it as well.

This info needs to go viral I am going to post it on Face Book.
in some ways demolishing the building may have savednlives.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11



originally posted by: Sovan
Siverstain.

Mossaud.
woukdnt doubt it evidence seems to point to it



Mossad, warned the United States of an impended large-scale attack by Osama bin Laden.

Silverstein wanted over $7 billion and he got only $4.1 billion, thanks to the 9/11 attack.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DuckforcoveR
I started at the 30 minute mark and nearly finished it off. I'm stunned.

I've always stayed out of 9/11 arguments just because it is very difficult to follow all of the theory and motive sometimes. She laid it out beautifully (especially the part about the lady who saw the plane flying north to the base when it should have been crashing in NYC).

Amazing stuff, maybe today gives me another chance to reexamine the "day after".

a reply to: jude11



She mentioned many facts that anyone could f8nd I didnt like the book pushing but good info. I liked the Daniel Lewis info the ex Israeli anti terror commando part of the saryet matkaal that was shot o. Flight 11 he was mistaken for the ring leader by flight staff.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11



This will back up their technical papers of demolition.

Not only is this credible, the photos are a slam dunk proving hundreds of fuse holders were in the WTC. This alone would hold up in any court room as evidence.


That is false. First of all, I have been in war to know what explosives sound like and there wasn't a shred of evidence nor even a hint of a demo explosion as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed.

Secondly, there were no secondary explosions when those aircraft struck the WTC Towers and there were no secondary explosions as those buildings collapsed.

Thirdly, seismic monitors in the area did not detect demo explosions as those buildings collapsed.

Fourthly, no evidence of demo explosives was ever found in the rubble at ground zero.

To sum it up, it proves that the claim of explosives as responsible for the destruction at ground zero was a fabrication.

To prove my point, please point out the time lines in the following video where demo explosions are heard.


edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
NIST claims it would of took Less that 10 lbs of RDX to take down wtc 7 undetected as they state in the Wtc 7 final report



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11



NIST claims it would of took Less that 10 lbs of RDX to take down wtc 7 undetected as they state in the Wtc 7 final report


As someone who has experience in aircraft structures, which can also related to building structures as well, and in knowledge about explosives, that 10 lbs claim is a joke.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
After reviewing all the testimony From the eyewitnesses, evidence and what experts state the world take center 7 was brought down intentionally
edit on 16-9-2015 by AsherLewin11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11

It seems that you are not aware that story was fabricated. Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story.



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.

911-engineers.blogspot.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."

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal





posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Nope, NIST has claimed in their final report on trade center 7 that it would of took 9lbs of RDX to bring down building 7 undetected. I do t blame you for thinking the NIST report is joke. I suggest you read it before commenting on the subject.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AsherLewin11



Nope, NIST has claimed in their final report on trade center 7 that it would of took 9lbs of RDX to bring down building 7 undetected.


Now, you got it down to 9 lbs. Do you think you can cut it down another 2 lbs?

Just to let you know that i have encountered people posing as truthers posting the most ridicules things imaginable in order to discredit the Turth Movement.

Can I safely assume that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing?
edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join