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.

 

Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

page: 67
55
<< 64  65  66    68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

That building was not struck by a B-767 and had its fire protection intact, which did their jobs, unlike the WTC buildings. Case in point.



How did the building fire in Dubai not cause it to collapse, when the twin towers did?

Now it's going to be a little while before we know the full extent of the damage that The Address suffered, but so far I'm hearing reports that much of the damage to the building was external- the cladding (outer skin) of the building is made of two layers of aluminum, with plastic sandwiched in between. It's light and easy to form into various shapes, but its also flammable. After the Tamweel tower Fire, the building code in Dubai was changed to ban any new construction using it, but buildings built before that were grandfathered in. The Address is in this category, having been completed in 2008.

Also, this building had the full benefit of its structure working for it, and it's sprinkler system remained uncompromised. That's two things that the twin towers didn't have, having suffered severe structural damage due to the plane impacts, which also severed the sprinkler pipes and stripped away a lot of the fireproofing over the steel structure.

So we have a fire mainly affecting the facade of a building as opposed to an internal fire affecting vital structural members, an intact structure vs a damaged one, and functioning stand pipes and sprinklers vs a plumbing system destroyed at the point of impact. These are two very different incidents and comparing them is like apples to oranges.

www.quora.com...




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

Evidence and the laws of physics have proven that fire was mainly responsible for the destruction at ground zero.


Ok but how about this.

You agree that iron micro-spheres were found in the dust. Do you also agree that there were thermite chips too (the red grey chips) or do you think those were only paint chips? Never mind that Jones suggests that the former is caused by the latter, do YOU think the evidence for thermite is true and accurate.

As true and accurate as for the presence of iron micro-spheres I mean.

I saw Harrit in a video talk about molten thermite pouring out the tower and toasting those cars etc. He seems to think there was thermite. I would gather that you cannot possibly agree with him based on your fire gravity stance, yet you are ok with accepting there were iron micro-spheres in the dust? You do not accept the presence of thermite? Please explain your position as regards thermite.

Pondering everything, I can wonder exactly what molten stuff really was pouring out the corner of the tower. It gets suggested it's thermite, ok, could be. Actually would make sense too because it was in the very corner reacting away, for there's nothing but steel in the corners, steel that would be good to cut with something to weaken it.

We don't know, for instance, how many joints, beams and corners on how many floors were subjected to cutting treatment. What we see with that one active corner is maybe just the one slip up runaway corner that a camera happened to catch.

This recent idea that the mobbed up Port Authority used substandard building methods... come on, you've all watched that construction clip of the time lapse of the core going up, that thing was bolted and welded together, to make it all come apart in 10 seconds from fire and gravity alone seems unlikely, especially when the whole building wasn't on fire and gravity had to destroy perfectly good building all the way down to the lobby! Lol.

No, how about this, thermite for the joints, for the corners, for the perimeter, because you cant use explosives on the perimeter, too visible.

Inside the core elevator shafts, many explosives in vertical chain, tiny but powerful, timed to go in short succession so as to either resemble collapse rumble or be muffled by the collapse rumble. Easy to place, hidden from all. Workers ride the enclosed elevators on the inside etc.

NIST doesn't test for explosives and all the steel and debris gets trucked out to who knows where beginning within days of the event.

Of course it was.

So your only evidence that there were no explosives are lack of sounds on an audio tape? Really?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned



You agree that iron micro-spheres were found in the dust.


Absolutely! In fact, micro-spheres would have been expected to be found.


... Do you also agree that there were thermite chips too (the red grey chips) or do you think those were only paint chips?


They were primer chips.



No Thermite Found

The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

www.bbc.com...


What can be expected from a structural primer?

Nucor offers our steel coated with both red and gray primer, galvanized, or unpainted. Unpainted steel is usually used when special paint or cementous coatings are specified. The contractor or owner usually subcontracts the finish painting or application of the more aggressive primer systems.

Nucor offers primers in either red or gray. The gray primers usually cost slightly more and often come with a schedule impact. Some miscellaneous clips will be provided in red primer even on the gray orders.

www.nucorbuildingsystems.com...


Aluminum & Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer

* Coating Section Dry Film Thickness mils
* Aluminum Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.8 5.0 min.
* Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.9 5.0 m

Corothane I - MIO Aluminum

COROTHANE I MIO-ALUMINUM is a single component, VOC compliant, moisture curing, aluminum and Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) filled, urethane primer, intermediate coating, or finish. It has excellent surface wetting properties and provides extended recoatability.



Never mind that Jones suggests that the former is caused by the latter, do YOU think the evidence for thermite is true and accurate.


The claim that thermite was used is false. In fact, you can find the ingredients of thermite in your home. Basically, thermite consist of aluminum and iron-oxide (rust).



I saw Harrit in a video talk about molten thermite pouring out the tower and toasting those cars etc. He seems to think there was thermite.


I have to disagree because thermite reactions generate extremely bright flashes of light, yet no such bright flashes were observed.


I would gather that you cannot possibly agree with him based on your fire gravity stance, yet you are ok with accepting there were iron micro-spheres in the dust?


Some of the micro-spheres were created by torches during cleanup operations as noted by the RJ Lee Group, in its WTC dust sample report. You can also create micro-spheres in your kitchen with a simple lighter and steel wool.


.... You do not accept the presence of thermite? Please explain your position as regards thermite.


Since the ingredients of thermite consist of aluminum and rust, (iron oxide) the ingredients would have been expected to be found. Secondly, there was no way to place that much thermite in the WTC buildings in order to bring it down and not attract a lot of attention. It took 1500 pounds of thermite just to burn through two legs of a tower and 1/2 ton of thermite was unable to cut a SUV in two pieces. How much thermite would you think would have been required to bring down the WTC buildings?

Answer: So much theirmite would have been required that the WTC Towers would have been transformed into something comparable to gigantic roman candles.


Pondering everything, I can wonder exactly what molten stuff really was pouring out the corner of the tower. It gets suggested it's thermite, ok, could be.


The molten metal is aluminum, not steel, which can be determined by the silvery droplets as they fall toward the ground. The location where the molten aluminum was seen flowing is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest. if there was a thermite reaction at that location, you would have seen extremely bright flashes of light, but there are none.



Inside the core elevator shafts, many explosives in vertical chain, tiny but powerful, timed to go in short succession so as to either resemble collapse rumble or be muffled by the collapse rumble.


Demolition explosions are extremely loud and can be heard for miles so there is no way demolition explosions can be muffled by the collapse as they blow out windows and walls if the windows were not already removed.


Easy to place, hidden from all. Workers ride the enclosed elevators on the inside etc.


That won't work to bring down a steel frame building, and once again, we can revert back to the 1993 WTC bombing as an example.


NIST doesn't test for explosives and all the steel and debris gets trucked out to who knows where beginning within days of the event.


Let's take a look here.



Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, wtc.nist.gov.... This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

www.webcitation.org...


.
edit on 6-1-2016 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NWOwned


This recent idea that the mobbed up Port Authority used substandard building methods... come on, you've all watched that construction clip of the time lapse of the core going up, that thing was bolted and welded together, to make it all come apart in 10 seconds from fire and gravity alone seems unlikely, especially when the whole building wasn't on fire and gravity had to destroy perfectly good building all the way down to the lobby! Lol.


So, why exactly do you feel that a collapse, if started without the explicit use of explosives, couldn't bring a building down?

The structure of a building isn't built to withstand such loading as to stop such a collapse once underway, the forces involved get enormous very quickly - because there isn't much 'give' in the system. A quick back of the envelope calculation (assuming the collapse drops 2 metres, then has to be stopped in 10 cm by the next floor/structure down) gives a stopping acceleration of 20 g. If you know of a skyscraper capable of holding 20 times it's own weight (in a dynamic load), I'd like to see it.

Incidentally, a persons weight falling 120 cm can generate forces of at least 25kN (aka, 2.5 metric tons) when dropped onto static nylon slings, so really the WTC is going to be slightly heavier than that. Just slightly.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   


The structure of a building isn't built to withstand such loading as to stop such a collapse once underway, the forces involved get enormous very quickly -


And then it dissipates.....As I said before applying the 3rd law makes the OS false..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

The RJ Lee Group's report refers "fire" as the source of "high temperature" for the transformations.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
And then it dissipates.....As I said before applying the 3rd law makes the OS false..


So let us look at Newtown 3rd law...

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

So exactly where in that law does it state the force caused by the falling building would just "dissipate" and stop the collapse?

This is basic physics, www.physicsclassroom.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: wildb
And then it dissipates.....As I said before applying the 3rd law makes the OS false..


So let us look at Newtown 3rd law...

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

So exactly where in that law does it state the force caused by the falling building would just "dissipate" and stop the collapse?

This is basic physics, www.physicsclassroom.com...


I already wrote about this, the top block falling on the bottom block would destroy itself as it destroyed the bottom block until nothing was left, at that point the action would stop as there would be no energy left.

However thats not what was observed...


Nuntheless you answered you own question..


"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
edit on 6-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: apex

originally posted by: NWOwned


This recent idea that the mobbed up Port Authority used substandard building methods... come on, you've all watched that construction clip of the time lapse of the core going up, that thing was bolted and welded together, to make it all come apart in 10 seconds from fire and gravity alone seems unlikely, especially when the whole building wasn't on fire and gravity had to destroy perfectly good building all the way down to the lobby! Lol.


So, why exactly do you feel that a collapse, if started without the explicit use of explosives, couldn't bring a building down?

The structure of a building isn't built to withstand such loading as to stop such a collapse once underway, the forces involved get enormous very quickly - because there isn't much 'give' in the system. A quick back of the envelope calculation (assuming the collapse drops 2 metres, then has to be stopped in 10 cm by the next floor/structure down) gives a stopping acceleration of 20 g. If you know of a skyscraper capable of holding 20 times it's own weight (in a dynamic load), I'd like to see it.

Incidentally, a persons weight falling 120 cm can generate forces of at least 25kN (aka, 2.5 metric tons) when dropped onto static nylon slings, so really the WTC is going to be slightly heavier than that. Just slightly.


Because of the way it was built. Tube in tube. Or more precisely pillar in tube.

I'm sure all your calculations apply but what they do not explain are things like the free standing spire that falls straight down and not over on its side. Straight down not bent over. Straight down to lobby level without shearing off at 300 or 400 feet leaving a pointy tower 300 feet high or 400 feet high. Two towers, tightly wound connected vertical pillars of steel, central cores, not a single piece of vertical central core steel remains to rise even above lobby level in either tower? lol

Where are the remnants of the vertical cores?! Sticking up ANYWHERE?

Show me.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: NWOwned
Because of the way it was built. Tube in tube. Or more precisely pillar in tube.

I'm sure all your calculations apply but what they do not explain are things like the free standing spire that falls straight down and not over on its side. Straight down not bent over. Straight down to lobby level without shearing off at 300 or 400 feet leaving a pointy tower 300 feet high or 400 feet high. Two towers, tightly wound connected vertical pillars of steel, central cores, not a single piece of vertical central core steel remains to rise even above lobby level in either tower? lol


No, I don't get what you think should happen here. If the idea is that it should follow the path of least resistance, which would be the sides of the tower, a lot of the debris initially does do that after the collapse starts.

However, in order for the entire top of the building to 'shear off at 300 or 400 feet', you need to prove the rest of the building is up to the challenge of pushing it like that. Starting with:
'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'
To push the entire top of the tower to the sides, the central structure needs to push it. How does it do this? Magic? Even in ideal circumstances, having a quarter of the structure go north, another east etc, the rest of the tower would need to be setup to 1) break up the above collapsing structure (would arguably need more preparatory engineering than Controlled Demolition) and 2) deflect it all sideways over maybe 20 - 30 metres - anything else and the forces involved get huge again.

And the other issue is momentum, which nicely brings me to:


Posted by wildb
I already wrote about this, the top block falling on the bottom block would destroy itself as it destroyed the bottom block until nothing was left, at that point the action would stop as there would be no energy left.

However thats not what was observed...

Nuntheless you answered you own question..

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Apart from the apparent belief that one floor which is identical to one that is falling will perfectly stop the falling one, where does the momentum go? Conservation of momentum is just as important an issue for the idea that the collapse of the WTC is impossible without explosives.

As for Newtons third law and two identical objects catching one another - have you ever tried catching another person after they've fallen the equivalent of one floor?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: apex

I think you misunderstand me, in my post above I am talking about the 'spire' shearing off and not at all about the top of the building.

The spire, as measured against surrounding buildings was approx. 700 feet high. It appears to 'collapse' VERTICALLY (which I take issue with).

My question is why it 'collapsed' to ground/lobby level without it or some other spire like protrusion FROM EITHER TOWER remaining, jutting up from the centers of the buildings. The most massive central vertical constructions in both towers, not a hint of either even being present after the 'collapse'.

The 700 foot spire just went DOWN. To 400 feet, to 300 feet, broke off at 150 feet NO, more like to 25 feet! The whole superstructures of cores in BOTH towers down to 25 feet. lol

There's a piece of perimeter wall of the lobby that stands higher than any section, any piece, any broken 'spire' from EITHER TOWER, you don't find that peculiar?
edit on 7-1-2016 by NWOwned because: typo



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned

By 'Spire', you mean the radio mast on top of WTC1? Honestly, I hadn't given it's destruction much thought, though I doubt it would be capable of surviving such a fall, even above the rest of the structure, it'd have to stop pretty hard.
At the start of the collapse it would just be pulled down by the rest of the structure it sits on, and I would guess it's destruction probably came from parts of the outside walls falling after the initial collapse wave onto it.

As to the rest of the core structure, really I'd expect it to be torn apart by the top of the core falling on top of it. I must admit I'm not an expert on building collapse but what was seen is pretty much what I'd expect to see from such an event. In any case there is no obvious destruction of the tower ahead of the actual collapse front - a demolition would need to be a very accurate wave of explosives traveling down with the apparent collapse to do this.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: apex

Actually by 'spire' I do not mean the rooftop antenna. I guess it's my mistake thinking everyone on here knows what is meant by the 'spire'.

The 'spire', as it came to be known, was a 700 foot high section of vertical core columns that waved around like a flag pole during the 'collapse' and THEN appeared to fall VERTICALLY down, right through what just mere seconds before was holding it up from below.

I find that peculiar, to say the least.

Add to that that the central cores were full of these giant vertical spires, so to speak, all tied together even, but there is no sign of either building even having a central spine structure from the lobby 'collapse' photos.

Giant steel spires, steel spines, all reduced to street level with no bits sticking up.

That is strange.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned

Is it this part you mean:



Refencing an earlier view:



Perspective there makes it's position unclear, but others in video makes it look to be external. North/West side wall maybe?

Taken from:




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
AIN'T NO WAY 2 PLANES CAN TAKE OUT 3 SKYSCRAPERS. [[[End of Story]]]

Besides, you can't imagine how big the towers were, if you never saw them up close. To believe an airplane, made of aluminum, could knock down a building made of concrete and reinforced steel, is preposterous. Besides that, fire doesn't burn through concrete and those towers weren't made of wood.

Here's an example of what happens when a plane does crash into a concrete structure.

Yankees pitcher killed in crash of small plane

The 2006 New York City plane crash occurred on October 11, 2006, when a Cirrus SR20 general aviation, fixed-wing, single-engine light aircraft crashed into the Belaire Apartments in New York City at about 2:42 p.m. local time (18:42 UTC). The aircraft struck the north side of the building, located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, causing a fire in several apartments,[2][3] which was extinguished within two hours.[4] Both people aboard the aircraft were killed in the accident: New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle[3] and his certified flight instructor Tyler Stanger.[5][6] Twenty-one people were injured, including eleven firefighters.


Now, i know you're gonna say "it's a smaller airplane"; but, it's also a smaller building. Not even the "plane" that hit the 1st tower would have gone through this smaller building, and it certainly wouldn't have collapsed it!

BTW, the foundation for the towers were around 50 feet deep. 1 tower was about a city block in size.

On top of that, if 1 part of the "official story" is found to be a lie, doesn't that make the whole "official story" a LIE???? I mean, the people that gave the "official story" are also the same people that pulled off such a feat.

Talk about having cake and eating it, too.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: JuJuBee
AIN'T NO WAY 2 PLANES CAN TAKE OUT 3 SKYSCRAPERS. [[[End of Story]]]


Well, I don't know enough about the collapse of WTC7 to comment on the third of those.


Besides, you can't imagine how big the towers were, if you never saw them up close. To believe an airplane, made of aluminum, could knock down a building made of concrete and reinforced steel, is preposterous. Besides that, fire doesn't burn through concrete and those towers weren't made of wood.


Yes well, water flows around objects, but get it moving fast enough and in a large enough quantity and it can move mountains. Or break/bend steel. Or destroy stone bridges. Seems a ridiculous argument? I agree, and the idea that an airliner can't bring down a skyscraper seems equally preposterous to me.


Now, i know you're gonna say "it's a smaller airplane"; but, it's also a smaller building. Not even the "plane" that hit the 1st tower would have gone through this smaller building, and it certainly wouldn't have collapsed it!


The 'smaller plane' weighed, at most, 1,383kg, and had a cruise speed of 155kn. A Boeing 767 has an maximum takeoff weight of at least 140,000 kg, with a radar tracked speed for the WTC 2 impact of 512kn.

So using those figures (inaccurate yes but reasonable IMO for this), the 767 had about 100 times more mass, and about 11 times the kinetic energy per unit mass, or to put it another way, about 1100 times more energy at impact with the WTC. Is that building 1100 times smaller than the WTC?

This is not a reasonable comparison.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee




Here's an example of what happens when a plane does crash into a concrete structure.

If you had bothered to research the incident you might see the glaring differences.
The plane was a Cirrus SR20.
Weight just over 2200 lbs.
The investigation centered on the banking angle.
It is suspected that the plane was in a stall at the time of impact.
So you have 2200lbs at about 50mph.
If it were a car it would have been survivable.
Nothing close to 911 speed/mass.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

And of course, if we use some more selective quoting from the wikipedia article linked about it:


The crash garnered extra attention because of superficial similarities to the September 11 attacks in New York City (whose fifth anniversary had occurred one month earlier).


en.wikipedia.org...

'Superficial' - as in, it involved a large building and a plane. Similarities over.

Although, I do wonder, a 50mph impact in a car into a concrete building being survivable, would probably depend on the car. Certainly I wouldn't volunteer to do that in my car.....



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: JuJuBee

That is nothing compared to a B-767 slamming into a buildings at over 500 mph.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
It started off discussing a guy close to the Bush administration and it has turned into discussion about the dynamics of the collapse, like there are not a bazillion threads about it already.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 64  65  66    68 >>

log in

join