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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 34
44
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Dr. Leroy Hulsey presents the findings of his WTC 7 Evaluation study at 9/11 Symposium in New York on Sep 10, 2016


WTC 7 Evaluation Concludes: Fire DID NOT Cause WTC 7 Collapse



WTC 7 Evaluation

NIST claimed WTC 7 collapsed primarily due to fire

edit on 13-9-2016 by AttitudeProblem because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I had to bump this thread, because someone on here wanted an answer from me in supporting my information.

The information I posted in another thread about a new investigation into WTC 7 is in the works, we are all going to wait to see the new Peer Reviewed Report that is going to come out this Spring 2017.



posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth


You mean cutting with a thermic lance like this





posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Elbereth


You mean cutting with a thermic lance like this






I'm not clear what point you are trying to make. Please clarify. I posted this link to an example of thermal lance cutting earlier in the thread.

Thermal oxygen lance cutting in Netherlands

I see no evidence of anyone holding a thermal lance in the BBC image I posted. Do you?




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

Can you give the context of the picture, evidence who took the image, where the image was captured, when the image was taken, prove the image is authentic and not manipulated, where the image was uploaded from.

How was the pretty light found. Digging by hand? Why would two workers just end up standing around looking at the pretty light and not try to extinguish the pretty light if it was impeding their cleanup of the debris. Unless they are the ones cutting the steel during cleanup?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

And yes, the guy squatting is running a thermal lance. The picture angle, or pixilation, is hiding the long thin lance.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I'd prefer to learn of the final outcome rather than give the boss fuel to burn my pants off...

Just saying.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

And yes, the guy squatting is running a thermal lance. The picture angle, or pixilation, is hiding the long thin lance.


If the picture angle, or pixilation, is hiding the long thin lance, then how do you know it is there?
edit on 9-12-2016 by Elbereth because: fix



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

Can you give the context of the picture, evidence who took the image, where the image was captured, when the image was taken, prove the image is authentic and not manipulated, where the image was uploaded from.


As I said on the previous page (33): "Doctored? BBC using AP image?" The link to the BBC article containing the image is there as well. Go take a look.

Here is the area of the image in question scaled up. I don't see evidence of a thermal lance going from the man squatting to the fiery hole, nor do I think that his body or pixelation would be able to obscure a thermal lance because the required area of travel for said lance is entirely in view.

Scaled up even more.

It don't rule out the thermal lance explanation, however, because it looks like a hose for a thermal lance may be run behind the two workers. I really am not that interested in this aspect of 9/11 anymore because it has recently become clear to me that the apparently insurmountable issues regarding 9/11 truth are the control of information and the conditioning of the public mind.
edit on 9-12-2016 by Elbereth because: correct and elaborate



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

Then link to the BBC article for context? A conspiracist using something out of context? Say it's not so?

And there are no smoking guns.

The troubles of the WTC goes back to studies finding the towers had insufficient structural steel insulation. The insulation upgrades were only completed on a hand full of floors when 9/11 occurred.

Add to the fact the jet fuel caused wide spread instantaneous office fires. The survivability of the towers design was based on slow spreading traditional office fires.

The troubles of the towers were further compounded by inoperable fire sprinkler systems in the areas most needed. Fire header mains cut by the jet impacts.

Then add in the NYFD trying to combat to high rise office fires with no water.

The situation was further compounded in the towers did not have a traditional robust concrete core that could protect the structures as steel floor beams lost strength.

The floor steel sagged due to insufficient insulation, catastrophic wide spread fires, no fire water, with no concrete core that acted as a fail safety.

As the fires died, the sagging floor steel contracted, pulling in the vertical columns. The deranged columns and floor connections failed. This resulted in the towers collapse.

The Pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC 2 that drives the true failure home.

www.metabunk.org...

No demolitions / incendiaries were present.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

You have all those smoking guns, yet you bother to post a picture out of context from the BBC? A picture from the AP that is part of the 9/11 government controlled conspiracy narrative?



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

There was a similar pictural claiming workers looking at molten metal which would be impossible due to the heat and it turned out to be an over exposed work light



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

What is wrong with you? The link is on page 33. From my above post "As I said on the previous page (33): "Doctored? BBC using AP image?" The link to the BBC article containing the image is there as well. Go take a look.""

Again: "As I said on the previous page (33): "Doctored? BBC using AP image?" The link to the BBC article containing the image is there as well. Go take a look. The link to the BBC article containing the image is there as well. Go take a look.""

Maybe you are on too many different threads. Go read our prior exchanges in this thread. I am not going to continually re-argue the same points with you, especially if you are going to read my responses so carelessly. You are being rather inconsiderate by doing so.

And indeed there are many smoking guns. For example, poorly trained pilots carrying out the elaborate battle plan on 9/11 while pushing the airliners at or beyond their design envelopes executing highly proficient maneuvers that would challenge the most experienced pilots is simply not credible and has been challenged as such by dozens of expert military and civilian aviators, many with thousands of hours experience in the very same type of airliners. And yet this is what the 911 Commission, and you apparently as one of their apologists, would have us believe.

Look, my friend, I have been fine tuning my bs detector for many decades now, and looking on in disbelief as 9/11 provided the justification and cover for the destructive transformation of America. The government's story is a dog that don't hunt on virtually every level at which sober scrutiny is applied, requiring countless incredible coincidences, one-off, precedent busting near or actual physical impossibilities, the destruction of or outright denial of physical and massive eyewitness evidence and testimony, the co-opting and hijacking of the so-called investigations by non-neutral parties, the aggressive fostering of a new and un-american nationalist faith rendering any questioning of government fabrications heresy, and the outright, Orwellian suspension of common sense and critical thinking by the once contentious media.

Believe the stinking pile of fetid compost that has been offered up in lieu of truth if that is your inexplicable (perhaps) desire and inclination, outlined with chapter names, headings, sub-headings, and sub-sub-headings prior to even the first meeting of the Zelikrock Commission. I will do no such thing and will continue to follow the evidence, the relevant expert testimony, and my own experience and carefully considered analysis, no matter how ridiculed, disturbing, painful, or unpopular.

edit on 10-12-2016 by Elbereth because: fix



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I saw that. That was good debunking.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

You rant and rant with no proof.

What was the context of the article the pic was is in and its caption?

Big shock, amateur pilots, with formal training, manage to crash jets already in the air on a sunny day.

So your smoking guns are:
One, an emotional rant.
Two, using a photo that you will not give the context and caption of.
Three, amateur pilots with training manage to crash.

Nice.

And no debunking of the inward bowing and failing of outside vertical columns due to the contraction of sagging floor beams due to cooling.


Double nice.
edit on 10-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Added in



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
From page 33 regarding context. I don't know why you couldn't just go one page back and re-read it for yourself, but here it is on the silver platter you seem to require:

originally posted by: Elbereth

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

Where in this article, news.bbc.co.uk... does it mention molten metal. The caption states workers cleaning wreckage. That usually involves cutting steel. Prove otherwise.


The image was provided in response to Pilgrum's claim that "Evidence of molten metal 'long after collapses' seems to be founded purely on doctored photographs..." Considering that the photograph is from the BBC, I think it is unlikely to have been doctored. I see no evidence of cutting devices in the image, and I seriously doubt if there was any activity of that type going on that the two workers pictured would be standing in such close proximity to it.

The image is titled "Investigations began as the wreckage was cleared," not, as you claim "workers cleaning wreckage."

Why did you mischaracterize the title of the photo, neutronflux?

So are these two workers actually investigators inspecting a suspicious, very hot and glowing area on what looks to be a large girder, or is this simply part of the debris removal process being depicted? I'm not sure.




posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Here is the link from the prior page. Unclear why you couldn't trouble yourself to find it.

originally posted by: Elbereth

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Elbereth

Evidence of molten metal 'long after collapses' seems to be founded purely on doctored photographs and hearsay statements.


Doctored? BBC using AP image. Maybe there is some type of debris removal cutting device I am missing in the image?
BBC News: World Trade Center Puzzle Lingers
----------


Hearsay? I guess, technically.


Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
Knight Ridder Newspapers: Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero
----------


New York City Department of Sanitation spokeswoman Kathy Dawkins: “Once the area was cleaned, normal commercial trash collections resumed by the haulers that are licensed and regulated by the Trade Waste Commissioner,” Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.
D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime
----------


'In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,' Fuchek said.
GCN: Technology, Tools and Tactics for Public Sector IT
Text Blue



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

edit on 11-12-2016 by Elbereth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   

edit on 11-12-2016 by Elbereth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Elbereth

And where in the article does it discuss molten metal? Molten metal found? The glow is the result of workers using thermal lances during clean up. How in the heck is metal hot enough to be molten hanging there and not melting its way down? A little logic please.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join