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

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 31
130
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Well i was 16 at the time. Actually as of now though I have 13-14 years in the construction field ( Iron working to be exact ). I'm not claiming to be an engineer , far from it . That being said I'm not completely clueless when it comes to steel structures. I,ve had my hand in building many of them. The way those buiding's fell that day just doesn't add up to me. There's those alot more educated than me that abide by your " Pancake Theory " . There is also many brilliant, educated minds that don't buy it. I guess at the end of the day none of us will ever know.




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleFire

All we can know with certainty is that the official story/explanation is false. We might not be able to know all the tiny details, but it is painfully obvious that the official story is bogus.



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleFire

Of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of structural engineerd world wide we have a pitiful few hundred that think it was a demolition. I worked in the design/ drawing office of a structural steelwork company before working on sites in technical roles.

Part of that involved testing structursl components sometimes to destruction and giving recommendations to engineers.

What kind of forces do you think a 1000 ton floor slab would generate falling just 12 feet the distance between floor slsbs in the towers.

WTC 7 had serious damage to the elevation facing the Notth Tower it was documented by the firemen or are you calling them liars.

Many pictures of the Pentagon are shown of the holes in the inner ring walls and spoke of as if they are images of the initial impact damage when they are not.

People to lazy to research or learn take claims like that at face value. Thats the real problem with the internet. When 9/11 happened I had 21 years working in construction.



edit on 24-11-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I have a question for the proponents of controlled demolition. It's been asked numerous times why none of the numerous videos of the collapse picked up the sound of the charges going off, and the answer (when there is one) is always "the buildings falling were too loud".

What building was falling when the first charge went off?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Proponents, who talks like that? And why, you've been thoroughly objectified as well?





What building was falling when the first charge went off?

None, the lobby came down on the firemen. You've seen their statement? The use of explosives to merely weaken the structure with the first charges isn't anything new either.
There's a very good thread regarding seismic reports though, missing audio files from random devices is a no-brainer for various reasons and thus not my favorit source of data.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Welcome to the rabbit hole!




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

If you watch demolition videos, the sound of detonation is more distinct than the rumbling of building collapse. Seems the sound of detonation is actually more discernible as you increase distance from the collapsing building. Should be able to filter out sound of detonation from audio of video footage.

How does a ground charge soften a building for a floor by floor top down controlled demolition.

The components of CD argue each floor of each tower needed explosives to obtained the witnessed collapse speed. Just four charges per floor would be a total of 440 charges for one tower.

One of the biggest proponents of CD is Richard Gage, who is quoted as saying the charges were designed to fizzle with no flash and no bang? Who heard demolition explosives again?

On the seismic data. Please go into detail of the time scaling and range of seismic waves. If you hide time and magnitude scaling, you can zoom in on data to make the insignificant look significant.

So firefighters were near an explosion in the false narrative of the ground level demolitions that was picked up by seismograph 30 miles away, yet did not go totally death nor injured by shrapnel from a detonating device.

No shrapnel from demolitions hit near by buildings, not recovered from 9/11 victims.

Hand searching WTC debris by conveyor belt recovered something like 400 wrist watches, 19,000 remains. 6000 of the remains could fit in a test tube. Yet no steel drilled for demolition prep work. No steel worked on by cutting charges or demolitions. No shrapnel from demolitions recovered. No evidence of shape charge fragments, blasting cap fragments, no wiring system for detonation, nor remote detonators.

How did an ignition system requiring utmost reliability, every precisely placed charge to carry out a never achieved top down CD survive the jet impacts and extensive fires. How did deranged demolition systems carry out flawlessly two CDs On 110 story building? Especially since a CD has never been used on a building over 50 floors, nor never on a building by top down.

If you would like to reply, please state were the charges were placed in the towers. How many charges. What kind of charges. And the detonation sequence.

Please, no generalizations, nor innuendo. Only facts for debate.

There is no rabbit hole. Just false narratives pushed by snake oil salespeople looking for profit, attention, and likes on YouTube for advertising revenue. That is the true conspiracy



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Are you saying they detonated some charges well in advance of the building collapses and the weakened building fell on it's own? Or they detonated additional charges later when the buildings actually fell?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



None, the lobby came down on the firemen. You've seen their statement? The use of explosives to merely weaken the structure with the first charges isn't anything new either.
There's a very good thread regarding seismic reports though, missing audio files from random devices is a no-brainer for various reasons and thus not my favorit source of data.


Absolutely!

Your source is credibal and no one was able to debunk it either. The fact is, the only thing I read from the debunkers on that thread was ridicule against LaBTop well research technical thesis which was excelent work I might add.

The fact is, the only thing that can scientifically explain the demise of the WTC is demolition, nothing else scientifically holds up.

The one thing conspiracy theorist do agree on, is demolition brought down the WTC and not jet fuel.

Perhaps that is why there is very little traffic on the 911 threads these days, we are just waiting for a Peer Review Report to come out and from my understanding there will be one this Spring next year.

The fact is we do not know what kind of demolition was used. We do not know if the building were wired or remote control demolition was used, we do not know if military grade weapons or chemicals where used that are not known to the civilian population that was used, that is a mystery to this day.

What debunkers are trying to do is compare old building demolition to the WTC demize, what they can't comprehend is the WTC were the tallest buildings in the USA besides the Sears Tower in Chicago, and it is my belief that this demolition was something entirely new. Whatever it was, it was fast, and burned at extremely hot temperatures for months, this is unheard of in any kind of building demolition anywhere in the world today.




edit on 25-11-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: PublicOpinion



None, the lobby came down on the firemen. You've seen their statement? The use of explosives to merely weaken the structure with the first charges isn't anything new either.
There's a very good thread regarding seismic reports though, missing audio files from random devices is a no-brainer for various reasons and thus not my favorit source of data.


Absolutely!

Your source is credibal and no one was able to debunk it either.



There was no explosions in the lobby caused by demolitions, just the horrifying crashing of free falling elevators.

Again, explosives in the lobby / basement debunked. This video clearly outlines the debunking of explosives in the basement/lobby.

youtu.be...

If the false narratives of demolitions in the lobby/ basement picked up by seismograph were true, everyone in the lobby would have gone death and been injured by shrapnel.
Especially in the context the 1993 detention of the 1000 WTC bomb did not create measurable seismic activity.


Do you even research all facts and evidence, or just stick to illogical one side arguments. No suppression of truth.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

www.youtube.com...

And here is a comment about your Youtube video in the comment section.


xxxxdarksidexxxx4 years ago

what one man? this mrskunkworkswannabe, he's just a troll for RKownen4 reuploading his own videos if I were to guess. he believes he's helping but has no evidence of his own just what others have already tried to do and failed at. Replace W.R. in this copied video with any of the correlating first hand victims reports.


And yet you have the nerve to talk about ATS conspiracy theorist using Youtube videos as evidence.



Do you even research all facts and evidence, or just stick to illogical one side arguments. No suppression of truth.


You demonstrated that you are one sided, how ironic.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958

Whatever it was, it was fast, and burned at extremely hot temperatures for months, this is unheard of in any kind of building demolition anywhere in the world today.



Fizzle no bang explosives, creating their on oxygen supply, would in a matter of minutes totally consume themselves. There would no longer be reactants to create a thermal reaction.

How would totally depleted reactants keep the pile hot Vs smoldering items trapped with a small pocket of air during collapse and reigniting when exposed to fresh air during debri removal?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Going to rant or provide facts to facilitate a debate? Or just dwell in emotion and innuendo?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

ONLY truthers claim jet fuel brought them down it wasn't one particular thing it was a COMBINATION can you people not understand or comprehend thatI.

You had STRUCTURAL damage and fires in the Twin Towers due to the aircraft there was STRUCTURAL damage and fires to WTC 7 due to the North Tower collapse.

YOU people cherry pick every statement you make because if you look at the events as a whole your tin foil theories fall apart.

For the Towers look at the locations of the impacts and the sequence of the collapse.

South Tower hit second and fell first impacted lower down so GREATER load above structural damage. It was also hit of center and when collapsing tilted towards that area.

Also as the WTC had an international work force the government could not have risked doing what is claimed in the crackpot truther theory if it was found out the consequences would be great.

We have had everything from the truther side from space weapons to no planes to radiation and emp free nuclear weapons basically anything BUT what actually fits what we see



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Going to rant or provide facts to facilitate a debate? Or just dwell in emotion and innuendo?


No need to. The casual ATS readers are not stupid or have IQ's below 70.


How would totally depleted reactants keep the pile hot Vs smoldering items trapped with a small pocket of air during collapse and reigniting when exposed to fresh air during debri removal?


I suppose the NYC Firemen are lairs to? With the years of their expertise in fire and putting out fires their story doesnt fit the OS narratives, I will believe what they witnessed, before I believe in what your "opinions" are.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


ONLY truthers claim jet fuel brought them down it wasn't one particular thing it was a COMBINATION can you people not understand or comprehend thatI.


Truthers?

I get it, people who have not done real research into the demise of the WTC have all the facts and their fact comes from fake News such as properganda mainstream media.

If properganda News feeds and internet sites such as 911 Myths which is a proven bias website that only support the OS narratives is what some people want to believe then knock yourself out.


YOU people cherry pick every statement you make because if you look at the events as a whole your tin foil theories fall apart.


You people?

Did I disrespect you? The fact is, the OS narratives are falling apart more and more every year I cannot for the life of me believe there are still people on ATS that support the os of 911 hook line and sinker.

I thought this website was to dey ignorance, not embrace it.


edit on 25-11-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

How does loud sound equate explosives?

Funny they never said they heard demolitions setting off?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



How does loud sound equate explosives?

Funny they never said they heard demolitions setting off?


"Opinions"

Do you know what explosives were used?

Do you know how the WTC were rigged with explosives?

Do you know all the new military paten weapons and their applications?

Do you have advance knowledge of new demolition applications that no one knows about yet?

Are you an expert in highrise demolition?

Are you an expert in all fire applications?

Do you absolutely support the pseudoscience of NIST?

You demonstrate you support the government and properganda media mouthpieces is this true?

Can you answer any of these questions I just posted to you?



edit on 25-11-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

No.

You are the one making sensational accusations based on innuendo and NO evidence, and only backed by pseudoscience. It's your job to provide a factual argument!

You need to provide evidence of controlled demolition to your accusations that I support mainstream media. What does no existing proof of CD got to do with questioning the government.

So sad you can only rant. No proof of controlled demolition. No logical or scientific arguments to support your false narratives.

Got a fact for debate?

edit on 25-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Let's start simple with your accusations. Is it true the witness collapse speed of the towers could only be achieved by the precise timing and setting off of demolitions floor by floor?
edit on 25-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Can you answer any of these questions I just posted to you?


No reply, just as I thought.

No use having a debate with a brick wall.




top topics



 
130
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join