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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
HR, how do you know this?

You said"

"WTC 7 did not have concrete core columns to support it."

???




posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron




[edit on 26/6/2005 by Sauron]


BTW, Sauron, do you know just how the firewalls in the core areas were constructed?

with drywall. 2" thick tongue and grove drywall with a 5/8" face sheet over it.

The same drywall that clogged the stairwells, trapping the occupants above the impact floors.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Back to Fantasy Island with you, Mr. Roarke!! "De plane, boss!! Here comes de plane!!"


[edit on 26-6-2005 by turbonium]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
This video is nice it shows that bright thermite glow on the left after the collapse and on the right it shows the spire just disintegrate to dust.

www.plaguepuppy.net...



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
HR, how do you know this?

You said"

"WTC 7 did not have concrete core columns to support it."

???



That is a well known fact about the construction of the towers. In fact if you look at the photos that were posted in the last page, you can see that the core columns are steel.

There was an program at the WTC towers in the mid '90s to inspect the steel columns in the core area elevator shafts due to the ongoing problem of poor fireproofing adhesion.

Besides for the floor slabs, no concrete or masonry was used in the towers. All of the core area firewalls were constructed of 2" thick drywall panels.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I have not been able to get any information even close to -straight up- concerning building 7's support collumns but it really doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned, especially for building 7. In order for 7 to have fallen the way it did ALL the support collumns at the bottom of the building had to "fail".... ALL at (pretty much) the same time. There are NO indications *whatsoever* (Before it fell) of any -cause- that could have done such a thing. Few fires here and there.. 'some' exterior damage from falling debree. So on and so on. Unless there was some 'hidden' fire just raging away out of view on the inside you understand I just can't buy into this.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Actually.. I stumbled across this but have not had a chance to study it closely..

www.fema.gov...='WTC%207%20core'

What's really funny is on page 31 when they are talking about "Probable collapse initiation events" it says this:

"The collapse of WTC7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion"

Wow, maybe they are on to something.

Also under structual description:

"With the development of an office tower in mind, the port authority of New York and New Jersey (herafter referred to as the port authority) installed caissons intended for future construction. However, seven world trade company, silverstein development corporation, general partner, decided to construct a building much larger in both height and floor area. The designers combined the EXISTING caissons inside the substation with NEW caissons inside and outside the substation to create the foundation for WTC7. (It continues on and on)

Then we get to this:

"Old and new caissons, as well as OLD and NEW COLLUMNS, also can be seen in the foundation plan shown in Figure 5-1.

And what were all these collumns covered with? Can you be for sure? I'm still gathering info concerning the vertical collumns in WTC 1 and 2.. Lots of conflicting information.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Here's another good picture of the core construction.



Whole lotta steel there.


If you look closely, you will see that there are four tower cranes. The mast for each tower crane is located in the corner of the core. THese masts were later removed after the building was topped off. In addition to the four masts, you will see that in this section of the construction, there appears to be four trusses in a box shape linking the four towers together. This is the very top section steel that you see in the core area of the above photo. This was also not part of the final structure.




This photo also shows the tower cranes.

typical floor plan:


11 and 12, are typical elevator shafts.

Typical structure framing plan:

17 is the typical core area box column.



A simulation of the damage to the core area.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Howard, I've got all those pictures save the animated one showing the animated plane breaking up. They don't help me with building 7..
But since were on building 1 and 2 I have to reiterate, they stood for quite a while after the planes hit the building. It's pretty obvious the planes were sliced up pretty good by the core as they went -through- each building.


Ok, and I would also like you to comment on what I had to say earlier about explosions and what effect ground coupling has on them.

This is a very interesting read.. Just started looking at it so commentary would be nice.

algoxy.com...


thread combined.. huh.. whaaa?





[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
TX, that concrete box theory is a hoot. Too bad there is absolutley no evidence to support it, and tons of evidence to refute it.

As for your other question, I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. See my thread on the WTC Seismic Hoax.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I don't know Howard about this whole seismic data thing. I'm in the process of gathering all the data I can about this and I'm going to present it to a professor at a local college here in Dallas and see what he has to say about it. The 40 second display doesn't really dispell the first one from my limited viewpoint.. I mean.. this 40 second timeline. Where does the collapse really fit in? Sorry HR but that PM artilcle is really off base. In the article it says:

"same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs."

Really? When I look at the 40 second graph it looks flatline.. Starts off BIG.. then tapers off with much less energy involved on the tail.. (building hitting the ground?) AND.. Notice the energy levels involved in the peak of the collapses and the peak showing when the planes hit? they are very similar in amplitude.. Notice the readings of the airplane strikes, the energy showing up BEFORE they peak? This is not the case concerning the readings of the buildings collapsing. IT's basically FLATLINE right before the PEAK. VERY SUSPICIOUS. What' I'm trying to say is.. If the peak energy showing on the 40 second graph is the building collapsing and not some explosion, then what is the readings of the tail showing? (Roughly between the 30 and 40 second mark) One more thing.. The peak energy released, theres the red box around it ecompassing about 12 seconds but the actual "meat" of the peak really only trevails for about 5 seconds. ?????


I'm also going to check into the different types of waves and what kinds of waves can be caused by explosions.. Is it possible for different types of explosions to cause different kinds of waves?

[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret] Yes.. another @#%$ edit..



[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
I can't understand how anyone can look at the videos and say that it pancaked.

L@@K at the debris as it falls it is showering and not adding weight to the top to cause pancaking so that leaves only the one other thing. Planted explosives.

If it was pancaked because of a few floors adding weight to it then should'nt the building have fell when the lower floors were blown away in 1993 after all reinforced floors almost 30 inches thick were blasted away on 3 levels below grade, plus a concourse level floor, leaving a crater about 150 feet in diameter.



you know, demolition experts usually do a small test explosion on site, to guage the strength of the support structures.
phil shneider said 1993 was an inside job, too(.....and oklahoma city). .....just before they finally killed him(after seven? attempts).



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Howard.. I have to reiterate this really quick.. I'm reading this report..:

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...


In it it says"A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which appoximately 0.5 tons of explosives were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

in an earlier post of yours you said this concerning the above "WOW a half ton explosion in 1993 and it wasn�t picked up by the seismograph that was even closer then the ones that were in operation on 9/11. Logically, then that must mean that your �seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse� were the result of even larger blasts. Please explain how this can be."

I responded in kind with this

"I CAN explain.. and easily I might add.. I'm not going to post links to substantiate this, you will just have to go read prior posts but it is a WELL KNOWN FACT that the explosives in the truck bomb WERE NOT connected to any part of the structure connected -directly- to the ground. *Bottom Line*..I don't even think the truck was really that close to any box collumns. You don't have to be an "expert" to understand the implications of this fact. AND I'll bet my bottom dollar that the -alleged- bombs in 911 were directly connected somehow to the box collumns (which were in turn connected DIRECTLY with the ground. )"

In a nutshell, I meant that an explosion "coupled" directly with the ground is going to show up more intensely on a seismograph than one that ISN'T. (A strong explosion that might not be quite stong enough to show up on a seismograph would indeed show up if "coupled" to the ground. The explosion that happened at WTC in 93 was not coupled directly to the ground, the explosives were in a truck supposedly not too close to any box collumns. Quite simple to grasp really. Of course those -alleged- explosions on 911 right before each tower collapsing are a mystery still. I'm just speculating that if major bombs were used in such an instance (I really think they were) I think I could safely assume that whoever did this learned from -past mistakes- and placed these bombs directly onto box collumns which were in turn -coupled- to the ground hence the -showing- on the seismograph. I believe that there were smaller bombs as well used in different places.


I know I said you could not refute the fact and effect of ground coupling and it's implications concerning explosions but that's the question I'm asking you.. I want you to comment on this.. ????? AND who are these people again who wrote the afformentioned report? Sounds like he's not taking into consideration important facts like the explosive that were in the truck bomb from 1993 were not coupled to the ground.

Talk to me.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer

Originally posted by Lanotom
If you look at this video
you can clearly see that there was some type of explosion at ground level before the collapse. And please don't try to tell me that was parts of the plane that were burning on the ground because it would have been immediately extinguished upon arrival by NYFD.


Hey great stuff Lanotom, i have never seen this video before. It's undisputable now, this smoke at the bottom of the building plays directly into Rodriguez's claims.

Like video evidence baby!..


Am I the only person who noticed this??? The puff of smoke in the video can have NOTHING to do with Rodriguez's claim. His report states that the explosion occured before the plane impacted the building. The puff of smoke in the video occurs before the building collapses, NOT BEFORE THE PLANE HITS. Nice try though



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I'm too lazy to read all 8 pages, but I think the janitor may be suffering from a hero complex or a lust for publicity...


www.nydailynews.com...


A 20-year Trade Center employee who swept stairwells, he swears he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001 and told an FBI agent in the family center at Ground Zero about it a month after the attacks. He never heard back from the bureau.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Lanotom
Here's another good picture of the core construction.



Whole lotta steel there.


If you look closely, you will see that there are four tower cranes. The mast for each tower crane is located in the corner of the core. THese masts were later removed after the building was topped off. In addition to the four masts, you will see that in this section of the construction, there appears to be four trusses in a box shape linking the four towers together. This is the very top section steel that you see in the core area of the above photo. This was also not part of the final structure.




That would be like saying a framed house was built and after the roof was laid they removed all the framing.

Prove to me that anything more then the cranes atop the steel mast were removed and I will agree but I am not taking your simple word for it. Prove it.




[edit on 27-6-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
sorry lanotom
he is right.
in this pic or early construction you can see the crane supports, these would have been moved up as each new level was completed.

however this does not mean that the buildings were brought down by the planes. the biggest hole in the official version is still the wtc7 collaps.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
sorry lanotom
he is right.
in this pic or early construction you can see the crane supports, these would have been moved up as each new level was completed.

however this does not mean that the buildings were brought down by the planes. the biggest hole in the official version is still the wtc7 collaps.


OK That photo does make it more obvious and so I will agree with HR (on this fact) as I stated I would.

And as you have stated that still doesn't dismiss the cover up.

Thanks for the photo.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom

That is ridiculous. That was part of the as-built construction.

That would be like saying a framed house was built and after the roof was laid they removed all the framing.

Prove to me that anything more then the cranes atop the steel mast were removed and I will agree but I am not taking your simple word for it. Prove it.




In this article we read about the cranes being "kangaroo cranes" also called luffing tower cranes..
www.constructmyfuture.com...

In this article we get a jist of how the cranes were raised..
www.panynj.gov...

edit add:

I just spent over an hour looking for some type of information regarding the luffing tower crane in relation to the world trade center.. and found very little to come to a conclusion if the jibs (the sections they add under the crane) were removed.

Sorry



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
No matter how much steel was there the fact is the buildings were standing for quite some time after the planes hit them. If the planes compramized so much of the buildings integrity then why did it not fall immediatly after the plane crash?
I know what you'll say well the fire did it, melted the steel. OK but WTC 7 had no plane hit it, no jet feul to make the fire burn hoter than a 'normal' fire. Why did it fall? from fire?
well ok but there was a fire in madrid. seen here. of a building also built in the 70's, of very similar construction. The Madrid Skyscraper Fire why did it stand for over 20 hours burning (quite a bit more than WCT7 did) and ended up a burning shell of a building, but STILL STANDING.

so a building fire in spain buring 20+ hours doesn't collaps the building, yet a building fire in the US buring for 6 hours does.


looks kind of familiar no?

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Halfofone]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join