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.

 

WTC Hero janitor blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Unless an elevator shaft is a total vacuum, there is plenty of air in it. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it's possible that not all the fuel that went down the shaft wasn't on fire, got trapped somewhere, evaporated, then the fire reached it and it exploded. That would explain at least some of the seconday explosions heard, and the damage to the machine. Just a theory.




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I doubt very much that Jet Fuel would of gone down the elevator shafts, is there any evidence to back this up?

I mean the only reason IMO that people are saying that Jet Fuel went down teh elevator shafts is because there are trying to explain the OBVIOUS fact that explosives were placed in the building.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Billybob, you're talking about 10,000 gallons of jetfuel. Not ALL of it is going to either vaporize, or explode on impact. The wings of the plane, where a large portion of the fuel was carried, were going to shatter on impact and spread fuel in many different directions,


yet, clearly the wings didn't shatter on impact. good observation.
clearly the airplane just disappeared into the building.
the plane showed no crumpling or signs of ANY resistance from the building. the tail should have shattered off, there should have been some visible resistance, there should have been some twisting from the tradgectory, as it hit on an angle....
we can see in the ensuing fires that these are by no means jet-fueled infernos. after the initial fireball, things die down to an dull roar with a lot of black smoke(inefficient burning).
at least that's what the firemen said. "knock it out with a couple of lines", was it? of course, what do firemen know about fires?
and the witness who was in the elevator when the plane hit, "a short blast of intense heat, fifteen or twenty SECONDS".



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

How come 100,000's of structural engineers aren't backing up Syntaxer?

I always get a kick out of these replies. They are worthless arguments, as are the reports from the so-called 'experts'. You cannot back up the official story with these theories because they ALL are based within the working parameters as set out BY the official story.

If you cannot include other factors, such as explosives within the buildings, into your working hypothesis, you are limited to trying to twist illogical and far-fetched assumptions into the observed events. As a result, all of the reports, from FEMA, MIT, etc. are so flawed the "expert" Engineers writing them would get a big red "F" from their 1st year Engineering professors!! Gross assumptions, glaring omissions in structural assemblies and integrity, and even violations in basic Laws of Physics.

The only reason they are not laughed at and disgraced out of losing their degrees is because of either the strictly stated narrow parameters within they must work out faulty and outright non-reproducible theories, or peer pressure and political coercion from the status quo heirarchy!!

[edit on 25-6-2005 by turbonium]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
You SERIOUSLY think that when that plane hit all those steel beams that were inside the building, they didn't shatter into thousands of pieces? If a plane just shatters on impact, why are there craters when it hits the ground? It would have initially gone INTO the object, then shatterd and exploded, it wouldn't just hit the building and break into pieces. There is no surface that *I* am aware of that wouldn't give way to something that size hitting it. If the wings don't ever break apart in a crash why aren't there more cartoon impacts when a plane nosedives into the ground? Wings are hollow pieces of aluminum. They CAN'T withstand an impact for longer than a few seconds. At 5-600 mph the planes would have gone into the ground and began collapsing before exploding, just like they did when they hit the buildings. There is no way that hitting a concrete building would have blown it apart on the outside of the building. Concrete isn't strong enough to cause that to happen.


kix

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I love this guy Howard, are you still on the Gov. payroll?

One of the things that I love about this conspiration so called "expert debunkers" is that they fire away a lot of dung and missinfo as long as they see it fits its "debunking"

My point.... Ok lets say the fuel went all the way down and burned people there and caused an explosion, then we have a massive ammount of fuel down the shafts, ummmm then explain the colapse theory? because in the colapse theory ALL DEBUNKERS SAY the HEAT oF THE FIRE made the towers colapse.... they fail to see that a very large part of the fuel burned OUTSIDE the buildings as planes crashed, but lets say all was INSIDe and burned the 80-90 floors to a crisp then explain the xplosions below? See YOU CAN T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO !!!, either the fuel burned for so long/hot that the building colapsed or it went down the shafts....

Now the guy is a hero, and nobody in the US wants to hear his history... RINGS A BELL ANYONE?

In my view this guys pulled both buildings with the firemen inside to cover up as much as they could, in the case of 9/11 are so many loose ends that even the blind see the cracks in it.

I am not saying Bush Did it I am saying that a lot of stuff on 9/11 smell /looks fishy... and its worth keeping an open mind about it...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
As far as the jetfuel down the elevator shafts? Why WOULDN'T it? Did they have some sort of special protection? I believe there were AT LEAST two people that reorted being burned by a strong smelling liquid, that was burning when it poured into the elevator they were in.


Some people plunged to their deaths after elevator cables were destroyed by the hijacked jets that crashed into the buildings. Others burned to death as flames shot down shafts. And some who were trapped inside stalled elevators died when the buildings collapsed.

The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

Cantor Fitzgerald tax lawyer Harry Waizer, 50, was alone in a burning elevator that performed as it was programmed to do in an emergency: It returned to its lowest floor — the 78th — and opened its doors. Waizer survived with burns over 40% of his body. He walked the rest of the way down.


Today, I believe that when the aircraft hit the north face of the tower, it’s momentum, driven by the aircraft structure and fuel, vivisected the floor, slicing through the elevator shaft and effectively dumping fuel from the low 90’s all the way down to the bottom. That’s why we kept smelling fuel almost all the way down.


The last quote is from here:
www.mmorris.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
10,000 gallons of fuel is a LOT of fuel. But I'm not saying the fuel is the ONLY cause of the tower collapse. Some did explode out of the building, some DID pour down the elevator shafts, and some DID burn on the floors. The furl would have ADDED to the intensity of the fire, but it wouldn't be the ONLY thing that burned in the offices. The fuel, and the explosion of the airplane would have started everything burning, and added to the intensity. The fuel wouldn't have had to burn long, just burn as hot as it normally does. Once the steel was weakened, it wouldn't have suddenly gotten stronger again just because the fire cooled down. It would have had to have had time to get the tensile strength back as the heat dissipated from it. Time it didn't have. And how do we know how much fuel burned outside the building??? Have you ever seen a fuel explosion? I've seen a couple that looked huge, even when not much fuel was involved.


Oh, and I never once claimed to be an "expert debunker". I simply believe that the gov't is telling us most of the truth THIS TIME.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You SERIOUSLY think that when that plane hit all those steel beams that were inside the building, they didn't shatter into thousands of pieces?


well, i looked at the video and the video shows a PERFECTLY intact plane fly effortlessly through a steel and aluminum curtain wall AND a bunch of stories of STEEL AND CONCRETE floor trusses, and that just don't add up. especially the floor trusses. curtain walls provide only a modicrum of structural support, but floor trusses are, according to the official story, a critical part of the stability and strength of the buildings. they provided lateral support for the entire structure. if you add that up in math world, it equals VERY STRONG.
things bump together and they affect each other. it's newton's third law of motion. for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
the floor trusses should have folded that plane like a cheap suit.
there was no opposite reaction from the building. it caved like a liar on sodium pentathol.

edited on billybob by june 25th

[edit on 26-6-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Then what caused the massive explosion and blew plane parts out the other side? Have you ever seen pictures of the massive concrete walls that they slam airplanes into to test them? There was a pretty good sized chunk of wall missing from one when an F-4 hit one at 700mph. It started to penetrate the concrete, then compressed and blew apart. That's the same thing that happened with the WTC. And the F-4 is a significantly smaller aircraft. The breakup was already happening when the plane hit the wall of the WTC. It started to break apart, but it was moving so fast, and the debris was travelling in the direction of the plane, so we couldn't see it happening. It's like what happened with one of the security cameras at the Pentagon. It was taking one picture every two seconds, so it could get a good shot of cars entering the parking lot. In one frame, you couldn't see anything and in the next there was just a giant fireball. The planes were travelling at 500 and 600 mph. You would have to have a super high speed camera to even BEGIN to see the break up happening. The nose would have started to compress even as it was breaking through the wall of the building.

An EMPTY 767 weighs 163, 900 pounds. JP-8, the military version of the fuel onboard the planes weight 6.8 pounds per gallon. There were 10,000 gallons onboard, so that's another 68,000 pounds estimated weight. NOT counting passengers/crew/cargo, the total weight of just the airplane alone would have been 231,900 pounds. Now if you figure out the kinetic energy at impact, you have AT LEAST 231,900 pounds. moving at 600mph. You SERIOUSLY expect to be able to see the plane starting to crumple in the half a second it took for it to puncture through the building? Or a simple concrete and steel wall to be able to absorb that much energy for longer than about a 10th of a second or so?

Have you ever seen a real time video of a plane hitting something? It dissapears into it, then you get a massive fireball coming back out. All you see is the initial impact, then the fireball. It's not humanly possible to see something that's occuring that fast, without a super high speed camera taking hundreds of pictures a second or so.

Another thing from high school physics. The smaller the point, the more force. My physics teacher gave us an example where a little old lady was able to put down a muscle builder using just a hat pin and a couple pounds of pressure on it. The same thing is happening with the plane impact. You've got all that kinetic energy concentrated on just the nose and fuselage of the plane. The smallest point of the aircraft. The nose punched a hole, and the rest of the plane made it wider.

There isn't a chunk of concrete or steel in existance that would be able to withstand the impact of 230,000+ pounds travelling at 600mph for longer than MAYBE a second. If there had been a super high speed camera pointed at the trade center at the moment of impact then MAYBE we could have gotten to see the plane crumpling. But wheter we saw it or not, it WAS crumpling at impact. It was just moving too fast for us to be able to tell until it exploded out the other side of the building.



Edited for spelling

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 26-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Even a 15 or 20 second fire at 1500+ degrees would have seriously weakend the steel, and it wouldn't have regained the tensile strength, because there would have been continuous heat applied to it. It would have had to have cooled down for awhile to regain that strength. It's like when you use a metal pan to cook. If you were to touch it 20 minutes after you took it completely off the heat, there would still be some warmth in it. The steel in the WTC would have had the initial burst of massive heat, which on other floors could have burned longer than a few seconds, which would have weakened the steel, and then the continuous heat from the offices that caught fire, which would have never given it the chance to regain the tensile strength it lost in the first blast of fire.

Just because fire hadn't brought down a steel building doesn't mean that it CAN'T bring down a steel building. It means that it's HARDER for it to bring down a steel building, and that more buildings will survive fires.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Even a 15 or 20 second fire at 1500+ degrees would have seriously weakend the steel, and it wouldn't have regained the tensile strength, because there would have been continuous heat applied to it. It would have had to have cooled down for awhile to regain that strength. It's like when you use a metal pan to cook. If you were to touch it 20 minutes after you took it completely off the heat, there would still be some warmth in it. The steel in the WTC would have had the initial burst of massive heat, which on other floors could have burned longer than a few seconds, which would have weakened the steel, and then the continuous heat from the offices that caught fire, which would have never given it the chance to regain the tensile strength it lost in the first blast of fire.

Just because fire hadn't brought down a steel building doesn't mean that it CAN'T bring down a steel building. It means that it's HARDER for it to bring down a steel building, and that more buildings will survive fires.

That is a completely incorrect analysis of the properties of steel and hydrocarbon fire, and the photographic and video evidence also refutes your argument. The woman standing at the impact hole in the tower is absolute evidence that the temperature was not even hot enough to avoid standing on. As well, the blackened areas show that the fires had completely died off.
If even the area exposed to the highest temperature fire retained its form and was then completely cooled to normal room temperature, how could you state that the rest of the building structure was in any way progressively weakened?

Two other facts conflict with your analysis. First, WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, and was not subjected to any possible temperatures beyond normal building fires. And yet it too collapsed in virtually a free fall. And it also had, like the towers, molten pools of steel in the basement. And corresponding extreme temperatures for OVER 5 DAYS after the collapses, as the USGS thermal imaging proves.

FEMA's report also stated that the jet fuel would have almost certainly burned away completely within the first five minutes of impact. FEMA’s report even stated that the WTC fires burned at, or below temperatures in a typical office fire. So, if we know that hydrocarbon fires can only reach a maximum temperature of 1517 degrees Fahrenheit, how could they possibly have melted this steel, when the melting point of steel is 2,795 degrees and the boiling point of steel (when it becomes a molten liquid) is 5,182 degrees Fahrenheit.

You cannot have molten pools of steel in all three basements of the buildings, and temperatures of up to 1300 degrees over five days later, without something other than hydrocarbon (or less intense as in WTC 7) fires being the cause of these anomalies.

The tests done on effects of fires on steel framed structures have borne out the same conclusion. The steel frame, even unprotected, will not collapse despite many hours burning (another point that makes the WTC collapses impossible through the official story, as they burned for less than two hours each).

I would challenge anybody or any group to reproduce the collapse of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 through actual controlled, independent demonstrations. I'd wager my house on it, as a matter of fact.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.


Collapse Watch an animation of the floor trusses giving way, followed by the buckling of the outer columns.

QuickTime | RealVideo: 56K/ ISDN+
NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.


NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire.

Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases.

However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000°F, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke.

www.pbs.org...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Now it may just be me, but when an engineer says something like this, from watching the video, I'm gonna believe him. When SEVERAL engineers say similar things, from watching the video, I'm gonna believe them. That interview in my last reply was from May 2002 btw. But every engineer that I've heard talking has said similar things, and has video proof to backup what they're saying, and can show on the video when certain events happen.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   


when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.


None of the trusses were gone, they were all still there, sure some may of weakened but they still would of had most of there strength.
Maybe if the fires got to about 500 C they may of lost 50 % of there strength.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
That's exactly what it sounds like happened. The trusses were heated to the point where they lost strength and failed. The fire was well over 500 degrees.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.


Collapse Watch an animation of the floor trusses giving way, followed by the buckling of the outer columns.

QuickTime | RealVideo: 56K/ ISDN+
NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.


NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire.

Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases.

However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000°F, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke.

www.pbs.org...

Eager has been debunked ages ago for this nonsense from Nova. First off, he isn't a structural engineer, he's a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems. No doubt MIT has structural engineers, but this guy can support the official story, then say he's not a structural engineer when he's shown what a fool he is!! He should be fired, anyway, for all the lies and omissions he spews out. The demo he did on the show was so unbeievably stupid, I laughed til it hurt! He doesn't even add a core column to his tinkertoy model - what a joke!

This link goes over the whole interview and proves what a buffoon Eager is..
Eager the Fool



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
okay, this has just settled into the same thing. ''see the nist report", or "the 911 ommision report".
the janitor is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there were explosions from below BEFORE the plane hit above.
this is cooberated by the detroyed machine shop on sublevel c.

explanations from commissions are speculative. the commissions themselves admit it. why won't apologists admit that the official pancake theory is an attempt to make the data add up. it is not necessarily true, as even nist has admitted. it is a 'theory', not a 'fact.

and a BAD theory, at that!



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
this is the first time im thinking the possibillity of a conspiracy actually could exist. The day it happened, i remember talking to my sister and she being in highschool at the time watched the news all day in school. i talked to her when i got home, i being in junior high at that point and part of the story she told me about what had happened was that there had been bombs under the WTC.... noone had really mentioned this on the news by the time i got home and got to watch the news and the whole bombs under the WTC my sister had told me simply faded from my head until now. could this be an example of what u cooks
would call mind control. do you think it was originally reported correctly with both the planes hitting AND there being bombs and we were somehow made to forget?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
billybob,

You are right, I should believe ONE janitor over hundreds of others. I should believe that the government was behind 9/11, because ONE janitor says so.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join