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.

 

Univ of Alaska findings on WTC 7

page: 9
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Regarding the coroner I think I remember what he's talking about. The guy was speaking tongue-in-cheek. The media was asking him about being able to identify bodies and he was telling them what any crash investigator will tell you, from a high speed steep dive into terrain there's not much left of the plane which is made of metal let alone the relatively fragile human bodies. When he says "there's no plane" he means the plane was pretty thoroughly destroyed on impact, he doesn't mean no plane actually crashed. And most of the plane proceeded into the ground, as you would expect from a heavy object traveling at high speed. This isn't even that hard to understand. They have to force themselves to be extra ignorant to not get it.

But again, this is the type of lies and out of context quotes they have to cling to to make their case. Some of them are just gullible, some of them know they're pushing bs but continue to do it anyway.

Here's a pretty good summary of the available evidence. The notion that there was no plane is simple fiction.

edit on 10 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Thank you for taking the time to post the video.

I actually spent a few hours trying to find the footage or a reference to Salander's claims.

I was just just trying to find the whole clip for context.

I don't get how an individual makes a claim, then will not produce the material for scrutiny, wants to be taken seriously, but then claims all the eyewitnesses for flight 77 and 93 are lying with no produced evidence. Then backs up claims civilians are lying by claiming the government is lying? With no proof of who is lying, and no motive given why 100s of civilian witnesses and family members would lie?


edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added name to clarify the posted video was proof of crash not a reference to coroner's comments



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Nothing will convince the debunker. The science is sound fires did not bring down a 47 story building. Debunkers ask stupid questions like who planted the bombs and why? Stupid, how in earth someone not involved with in the demolition job have operational knowledge? There is plenty of evidence the "girders had shear studs" only NIST claims there was none in the girders that shifted out of place. Everyone should have called out NIST before this their computer model showed a building caving in each side and this model looked nothing like the real collapse we saw on TV.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

That's not the video he was talking about, it's just another video that has a bunch of eyewitness testimony and photos, showing pretty clearly a plane crashed there.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Start here and work your way through. Literally every part of the conspiracy theory has a mundane, easily understandable explanation. There's a lot more technical explanations available, but these videos dumb it down so that even the most uneducated can understand it. For the collapse video below, which is video 1 in a series, you literally just have to be able to look at straight lines next to other lines that should be straight, but aren't, to understand it. You could probably make a chimpanzee understand it. The building is clearly bowing inward. To argue otherwise you would have to pretend the beams are parallel to the lines, when they're not. You'd literally have to uninvent geometry.

WTC 1/2 Collapse explained

Bldg 7
edit on 10 9 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?

edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Jacobu12

Start here and work your way through. Literally every part of the conspiracy theory has a mundane, easily understandable explanation. There's a lot more technical explanations available, but these videos dumb it down so that even the most uneducated can understand it. For the collapse video below, which is video 1 in a series, you literally just have to be able to look at straight lines next to other lines that should be straight, but aren't, to understand it. You could probably make a chimpanzee understand it. The building is clearly bowing inward. To argue otherwise you would have to pretend the beams are parallel to the lines, when they're not. You'd literally have to uninvent geometry.

WTC 1/2 Collapse explained

Bldg 7



Office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there was nothing inside WTC7 burning that would have seen temperatures get hot enough. Twin Towers was different as it was hit by a missile/ plane jet fuel and the heat may have got hot enough to melt steel?

There is only 1 steel framed building in history, prior to 9/11 and after that came down from fire. This building was in Iran. Buildings in Iran are not build to the same standards you find in Europe or the United States. So we really left with 9/11 as the first time a steel building came down from fire! NIST is saying the most improbable thing happened on 9/11. This is nonsense we have numerous steel buildings also on fire surviving and not falling down.
edit on 10-9-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12


It's strange, but there are people who just cannot comprehend any fire code and what its goals and methods are.

Fire Engineering Magazine editorialized at the time about the utter lack of forensic rules being used. Some people do very well understand the purpose for having a fire code.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The Seattle Superdome demolition had almost as large a debris pile as one of the WTC towers and it was mostly empty space.
The clean up did take longer than normal, but I believe that was mainly due to making sure they found all the human remains they could.

I am sure you would never believe me, but I don't think I am too smart to be tricked. I have seen the video showing the construction of the World Trade Center towers and I understand that there was approx and acre of space per floor, but there was also a tremendous about of concrete and iron per floor. Not to mention the exterior cladding. You multiply that by 110 and you have a lot of material.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Jacobu12

Can you cite were NIST referenced melted steel in the WTC 1, 2, or 7? Did you even watch the videos?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?


The people who investigated this for the Government did not check for explosives or wrongdoing, They had a set believe going in this building collapsed from damage or a fire. I don't even think it crossed their minds, the building was demolished by a second party. They were always going to come out with a theory that matched this believe. The Structural WTC7 designs from 1983 mentions: shear studs on the girders. NIST dismissed this why?, well the girders that shifted out of it's seat, and lead to the collapse ( if you believe NIST) had no studs, as it wasn't specifically pointed been in place at the section of collapse? They ignored what was said the girders have shear studs.
edit on 10-9-2017 by Jacobu12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Can you cite where the NIST paper has been proved true and accurate?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120




www.uwgb.edu...

Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

She does address the energy source and shows how Hurricane Erin was just outside New York on 9/11. Interesting to note that the hurricane was not mentioned on News casts across the nation in the days leading up to 9/11. It is possible that this was used as a power source. There are documents showing the attempt to manipulate and control weather. The Air Force claims they will control weather by 2025. (csat.au.af.mil...). Who's to say someone hasn't already achieved it?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Can you cite where the NIST paper has been proved true and accurate?


Can you cite a theory with proof to supersede that drooping floor trusses contracted to pull in the vertical columns and initiated the collapse.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12


Some people do very well understand the purpose for having a fire code.


Yes.

The purpose is to prevent buildings from collapsing long enough for occupants to get out, and fire fighters to get at it, cuz contrary to truther beliefs ordinary office fires can collapse steel framed high rises.

If you disagree, explain the purpose of the steel insulation.

My understanding is that it prevents the steel from heating up to collapse temps.

Do any of you conspiracy believers think any differently?



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Does that look 5 stories tall to you?

www.drjudywood.com...

This is a view from West Street, looking east across the remains of WTC1. FEMA entered this photo on 9/13/01, which is the earliest date for any posts for the 9/11 event. Other photos they have for 9/13/01 show much more people and equipment present. So, it is believed that this photo was taken on 9/11/01, but entered into their files on 9/13..



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jacobu12


It's strange, but there are people who just cannot comprehend any fire code and what its goals and methods are.

Fire Engineering Magazine editorialized at the time about the utter lack of forensic rules being used. Some people do very well understand the purpose for having a fire code.


It just commonsense this is not regular. Why do other steel buildings survive fires and not collapse? What different about WTC7, it had the same blame for collapse ( fires)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Here it is again....

Excerpts From The Mad Scientist’s Handbook: So You’re Ready to Vaporize a Human

From the above article, it would take 70 of the worlds most powerful lasers to vaporize a human. Let's go with 70 lasers per ton for one towers. Because the towers didn't collapse all at once, and did create a ruble pile. You are still talking the equivalent energy machine of 350,000 lasers using the ridiculous low figure of only 70 lasers per ton.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

What evidence can you cite the cause was something other than fire related failures?

Thermite paint?

Thermite ceiling tiles?

False reports of thermite in WTC dust?

Thermite has never been used in the CD of a high rise building.

Fizzle no flash bombs?

How about no evidence of an audible detention that would indicate a produced shockwave / pressure wave with enough force to cut steel beams?

WTC 7 collapse stated in near silence. No visible shock wave or pressure wave seen in the smoke.

No shrapnel.

No windows blown out.

Dustification?

Nukes?

It's not that AE 9/11 Truth questioned NIST. Lots of legitimate complaints about NIST. (However, note there was a law suit of Aegis insurance vs WTC 7 owners where both sides concluded fire related failures to collapse through research)

Its AE 9/11 Truth has no credibility.

And we haven't even gotten to how a complex detention system survived fires and building damage..... to perform the fictional first ever thermite CD?


The people who investigated this for the Government did not check for explosives or wrongdoing, They had a set believe going in this building collapsed from damage or a fire. I don't even think it crossed their minds, the building was demolished by a second party. They were always going to come out with a theory that matched this believe. The Structural WTC7 designs from 1983 mentions: shear studs on the girders. NIST dismissed this why?, well the girders that shifted out of it's seat, and lead to the collapse ( if you believe NIST) had no studs, as it wasn't specifically pointed been in place at the section of collapse? They ignored what was said the girders have shear studs.


What the hell where they going to check? Random bits of over 1,000,000 tons of rubble. Pretty meaningless.

Videos of the buildings collapsing recorded no audible sound indicative of a pressure wave capable of cutting steel.

There was no indication of steel worked on by demolitions.

No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured or human remains.

Metallurgical analysis revealed steel sheared or overloaded by weight. No signs at the crystalline or grain boundary level of steel being worked on by demolitions.

The hand searching of ruble did not reveal any parts and fragments of blasting caps, demolitions shrapnel, ignition systems, or detonation systems to test.

The fire fighters, police bomb experts, and engineers did not find any evidence of items worked on by demolitions to test for explosives.

Thanks for the false argument.
edit on 10-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join