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.

 

Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra



Those videos show nothing but the last 30 seconds before collapse.


Which proves that explosives were not used because the effects of explosives is immediate.


We can not know incontrovertibly that bombs were not placed in the buildings because,...


That fact there were no secondary explosions at the point of impacts and during the collapse of the WTC buildings, further debunks the claim that explosives were placed within the WTC buildings. Once again, you cannot just place explosives in a steel framed building and expect the building to collapse because the blast waves will simply flow around the steel columns. I might add that in addition to the 1993 bombing, there was another explosion at the WTC complex in 1992 that had nothing to do with explosives, and once again, why hearsay of explosions is not evidence of explosives.


... as stated, despite multiple eyewitness accounts that suggest there could have been, that possibility was never investigated.


There were many reasons, and among them, it would have been impossible to prepare the WTC buildings properly in order to bring them down with explosives, a process that would have taken almost a full year, and not attract a lot of attention,


That's one of the things that puzzled me at the time. During most major incidents we are repeatedly informed that all lines of enquiry are being followed but it seems, during the events of September 2001, that certain leads were totally ignored.


You have to understand the process for preparing a steel framed building for explosive demolition and the effects of shockwaves on steel columns by explosives not firmly and properly attached to steel columns.

First of all, the steel columns must be properly pre-weakened, and that includes weakening stairwells and firewalls, a process that is very noisy and tends to create a hazardous environment.

Next, you firmly attached cutter charges to the steel columns, which make a lot of noise. After the cutter charges have done their jobs, other explosives are used to blow the weakened steel columns into a particular direction to facilitate the collapse and I might add that the explosives are not capable of flinging huge steel columns hundreds of feet. Then, there are the thousands of feet of detonation cords, none of which was ever found in the WTC rubble and even wireless detonators leave behind evidence, which was not found either..

Why place explosives in a building when the same buildings are to be targeted by aircraft?


At the very least it suggests that the "official story" had been decided on well before the time that any thorough investigation could have been completed.


More than enough evidence has been presented that shows that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was quite capable of collapsing the WTC buildings and such evidence can be found in the horseshoe-shaped structural steel of the WTC buildings.

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




posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   


More than enough evidence has been presented that shows that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was quite capable of collapsing the WTC buildings and such evidence can be found in the horseshoe-shaped structural steel of the WTC buildings.


No sorry, no evidence and no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't understand. Why is it that no matter how often I try to explain to you that I am not talking about controlled demolition that you keep returning to that subject?

Answer me this....


If I wanted to bring down the World Trade Centre buildings and I decided to try flying aircraft into them in order to do so would I lower my chance of success by also planting a number of bombs on select floors?

Doesn't it stand to reason that bombs exploding at various times after the planes hit would also weaken the structure far below the points of impact? NOT as a way of eliciting a controlled demolition but just to weaken the whole building sufficient to assist in the eventual overall collapse?

This model is far closer to the eyewitness accounts than the idea of professional controlled demolition charges. It doesn't stand to reason that you can try to refute this with an explanation of how legitimate, professional organisations bring about controlled demolitions because I am not talking about CD, I'm talking about bombs.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



No sorry, no evidence and no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level..


Apparently, the experts have spoken.



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."



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   


Apparently, the experts have spoken.



And still no evidence and no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra



If I wanted to bring down the World Trade Centre buildings and I decided to try flying aircraft into them in order to do so would I lower my chance of success by also planting a number of bombs on select floors?


It actually would make no difference because the shockwaves will simply flow around the steel columns if explosives are not attached to structural steel. If attached, the impacts would have dislodged the explosives, which would render the explosives ineffective. Remember, the impacts were violent enough that they dislodged fire protection from the steel structures of the buildings. In addition, secondary explosions would have been evident, but none were observed nor heard during the impacts nor during the collapse. If the explosions were detonated while firmly attached to the steel columns, the detonations would have sent shock signals down through the steel structure and into the ground where the signals would have been detected by seismographs, yet no such signals were detected.



Doesn't it stand to reason that bombs exploding at various times after the planes hit would also weaken the structure far below the points of impact?


Yes, but in order for explosives to weaken the steel structure, explosives must be firmly attached to the steel columns and when detonated, shock signals would have been generated, and once again, no such signals were detected. In other words, if you bang on a steel beam with a hammer (detonation) at one end of the steel beam, you will hear the results at the other end (shock signal).


NOT as a way of eliciting a controlled demolition but just to weaken the whole building sufficient to assist in the eventual overall collapse?


Once again, in doing so, the detonations would have been detected.


This model is far closer to the eyewitness accounts than the idea of professional controlled demolition charges.


We can rule out explosives by the fact no explosions occurred during the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and no shock signals detected during the collapse of those buildings, hence, no explosives were responsible for their collapse. Explosions that occurred hours and minutes before and after the collapse of the WTC buildings is not indicative of a controlled demolition operation.


It doesn't stand to reason that you can try to refute this with an explanation of how legitimate, professional organisations bring about controlled demolitions because I am not talking about CD, I'm talking about bombs.


In regard to bombs vs. controlled demolition, let's take a look at the following photos because bombs are not that effective against steel frame buildings. Remember, we are not talking about wood framed buildings.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4

Photo 5

.


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



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

14 years and counting and still no evidence for explosives.



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.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   


14 years and counting and still no evidence for explosives.


And still no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level..

And no explanation as to where 3180* F came from, and on and on..

And if your going to quote things a link would be appropriate..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Yes but, don't you have to first test for the presence of explosives, find none, AND THEN conclude they weren't used?

I mean as opposed to going with a speculative consensus of people's opinions without said testing?

So a group of people who weren't there, who did zero testing, and received no conclusive results, SAY it wasn't explosives?!

Is that right?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: skyeagle409

Yes but, don't you have to first test for the presence of explosives, find none, AND THEN conclude they weren't used?

I mean as opposed to going with a speculative consensus of people's opinions without said testing?

So a group of people who weren't there, who did zero testing, and received no conclusive results, SAY it wasn't explosives?!

Is that right?



Yeah thats right, they like to say none were found but ignore the fact it was not looked for, then they say why it was not looked for as an excuse..

It goes along the same lines as why the collapse itself was never looked at..
edit on 6-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NWOwned

Three things were already evident that no explosives were used.

1. No sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed

2. No seismic data evidence that explosives were used

3. No evidence of demolition hardware found during cleanup operations at ground zero.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



And still no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level..


Let's take a look here.



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.



And no explanation as to where 3180* F came from, and on and on..


Steven Jones, not from the RJ Lee Group. Another case in point that was posted.



... that shocked the three “fire-wise professors” from Worcester Polytechnic Institute; that lead had been vaporized; that molybdenum had been melted; and that the metal pools contained iron that had been heated, as shown by the orange color, above 2,000°C (3,632°F).


That is incorrect because the orange color of steel indicates a temperature range of 1700-1800 degrees F., not 3,632 degrees F. and 1800 degrees F. was a temperature recorded at ground zero. So once again, Steven Jones has been proven incorrect because at no time did the RJ Lee Group claim the temperatures reached over 3000 degrees F. The RJ Lee Group referred to iron flakes that melt at much lower temperatures than bulk iron.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Let's take a look here.


And other fire chiefs say otherwise, again no link , no name ? Just an opinion, so still no explanation has been provided as to why the towers collapsed to ground level.. post all you want that fact will not change..





Steven Jones, not from the RJ Lee Group


Yes from the RJ Lee report, I pulled it from the very report you yourself posted..



The presence of lead oxides on the surface of
mineral wool indicates the exposure of
high temperatures at which lead
would have undergone vaporization, ox
idation, and condensation on the
surface of mineral wool.



Based on that observation it is clear 3180* F must have been reached...


Page 21


911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 6-1-2016 by wildb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

They are talking metal flakes. What temperature does lead melt?



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

They are talking metal flakes. What temperature does lead melt?


What part of The presence of lead do you not understand.

Why are you asking what temp does lead melt at, we're not talking about melting lead..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Because lead would have melted long before 3000 degrees F. was reached. Another case in point about the source of 'high temperature' mentioned in the report.



RJ Lee Group Dust Sample Report

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust.

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

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



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   


Because lead would have melted long before 3000 degrees F. was reached.


Yes it would have and it did..





Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC


And where did these temps come from, the fires were put out when the collapse began...



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb



The RJ Lee Group Report

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

www.metabunk.org...


And, the fires, as indicated in the RJ Lee Group Report. In addition, we can also take a look here.



Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

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



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb



The RJ Lee Group Report

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

www.metabunk.org...


And, the fires, as indicated in the RJ Lee Group Report. In addition, we can also take a look here.



Iron Burns

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

.



When your ready to get back on topic please let me know..



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

What does the RJ Lee Report say about fire exceeding the plastic strength of structural steel whereas, they caused the collapsed?

In regards to this thread, why wait an hour to blow up the buildings?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join