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 Challenge

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Can you conclusively proove that those are steel columns sections flying through the air and not pieces of the aluminum facade, which you are comparing them to on the side of the building?

No.


It depends what color you think the steel is.





Can you categorically prove that compressed air can eject the aluminium covers, severed pieces of steel, and steel spandrels with such explosive force for hundreds of feet?



No.


[edit on 2005/7/4 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Different buildings, different desired effect, different methods. Regardless, compressed air will never be able to do what some people want it to do.


Errr.. nobody's ever done a top down demolition. If you can find a single case... pictures, video, text reference, log entry, note, something scrawled on a napkin, I'll eat my hat. You're arguing that the pics show a massive explosion, but that would have to be repeated on each and every level to bring the building down. Any reports of 110 massive explosions?

Compressed air... used in cannons for at least 115 years. There was a battery of them built in 1890 to protect NY harbor that had a range of 2000 yards with a 500 pound projectile. www.militarymuseum.org...
Each of the WTC floors had one acre of air space, 12 feet high, forced into almost nothingness in an instant. You bet your ass it would have torn up the steelwork and thrown it hundreds of yards. What else would you expect?


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

You have voted wecomeinpeace for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Do you get off on baiting people or something?


No, it was sincere. You did great work putting it all together and deserve the vote.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Errr.. nobody's ever done a top down demolition...You're arguing that the pics show a massive explosion, but that would have to be repeated on each and every level to bring the building down.


You're right, mtabp, no one has ever done such a demo before, but there's no way they could do a traditional controlled demo for a building that took damage at the top. It would be too obvious. That's why they had to pop the floors out one by one from the top down. WTC7 however is a different matter. Classic controlled demo. Flawless even.


Any reports of 110 massive explosions?


There were isolated explosions reported by multiple witnesses before the collapse. As for during the collapse, when multiple explosions occur microseconds apart, on a seismograph, they are indistinguishable from each other. All you get is a constant signal, and to the ear a constant rumble.


Compressed air... used in cannons for at least 115 years. There was a battery of them built in 1890 to protect NY harbor that had a range of 2000 yards with a 500 pound projectile.


You're talking about air concentrated into a single vector. Blow through a blowgun and the dart will travel for a great distance. Put the dart on the table, blow on it as hard as you can and see how far the dart flies.


No, it was sincere. You did great work putting it all together and deserve the vote.


Ok then, cheers.
But I'm only pointing out the obvious. No new revelations here.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Errr.. nobody's ever done a top down demolition. If you can find a single case... pictures, video, text reference, log entry, note, something scrawled on a napkin, I'll eat my hat.



Controlled demolition is not successful if just the bottom is taken out, that lends to anything above that point being completely random, hence - not controlled. A high-rise/semi high-rise has to be a progressive and/or simultaneous explosion of structural support, those perameters based on the building and surroundings. It's not just "top-down" in that the top is the only explosives location, it is a precisely timed action within the whole structure.

I am having difficlulty finding a reputable source for you, as anything "demolition" reverts to WTC. Even using negative search peramters of WTC and such still gets a lot of BS sites. I am trying to find something from the Loizeauz family, they are the gods of controlled demolition. I only want to post something of their caliber, as opposed to what I have posted here, which is from a source I don't know, and with it's URL would be blown off by demolition skeptics. Such as if I found something from Rense, I would not use it, as that site is tarnished by skeptics.

I will find something credible, as I have watched countless hours of demolition documentaries, and know from learning that tall buildings have demo from bottom to nearly top. As for it being hard to fell an already damaged building, the Loizeauz family brought down the severely damaged Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

If you also care to search any, put "Loizeauz" in with your search, credibility with that name is un-surpassed.

Excerpt:

.............."An article about the controlled progressive collapse of the Biltmore Hotel in Oklahoma City, in 1977. A "controlled progressive collapse" is a type of controlled demolition used on steel-framed concrete high-rise structures, wherein demolition charges are placed on various floors of the skyscraper, from top to bottom." ...............
suetheterrorists.net...

Misfit



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
That's why they had to pop the floors out one by one from the top down. WTC7 however is a different matter. Classic controlled demo. Flawless even.


Oh, but you just said the windows popping out were squibs... What were the squibs for if they blew up every floor in perfect timing all the way down to the ground?



There were isolated explosions reported by multiple witnesses before the collapse. As for during the collapse, when multiple explosions occur microseconds apart, on a seismograph, they are indistinguishable from each other. All you get is a constant signal, and to the ear a constant rumble.


Go to www.controlled-demolition.com... they've been demolishing buildings for 52 years all over the world. They use between 2000 - 9000 small charges on buildings one quarter this size and you can hear every charge going off.



You're talking about air concentrated into a single vector. Blow through a blowgun and the dart will travel for a great distance. Put the dart on the table, blow on it as hard as you can and see how far the dart flies.


Sorry, it's just the same principle. Force enough air into a small enough space and you can do some serious damage. I'll try the dart experiment, you put a layer of flour on your table and then drop an encyclopedia on it. Bet I get back here first.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

If you also care to search any, put "Loizeauz" in with your search, credibility with that name is un-surpassed.


Their company is controlled demolition, the link I gave above and the source of the video I posted.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Errr.. nobody's ever done a top down demolition. If you can find a single case... pictures, video, text reference, log entry, note, something scrawled on a napkin, I'll eat my hat.


Excerpt:

......... "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex." ............

Loizeauz - CDI - J.L. Hudson Department Store

If you are saying that there are folks saying WTC's fell from demo "just" on the top, they as well are wrong - everything is precision timing, not just one location, be it top or bottom - explosives are thoughout.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

If you also care to search any, put "Loizeauz" in with your search, credibility with that name is un-surpassed.


Their company is controlled demolition, the link I gave above and the source of the video I posted.



Hey, weren't these the same guys that had their hands in the 7 billion dollar clean (my opinion)up of the demolition that they performed on the WTC.




[edit on 4-7-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
If you are saying that there are folks saying WTC's fell from demo "just" on the top, they as well are wrong - everything is precision timing, not just one location, be it top or bottom - explosives are thoughout.

Misfit


That's exactly it. There's no sign or evidence of any explosives placed anywhere. The building falls from the top down, each floor pancaking the one underneath in succession. A few lower windows pop out, probably from the air pressure or gas explosions, but the structure is undamaged below the falling floors.

A controlled demolition involves charges on the structural supports at MANY levels to collapse a building. In EVERY case, the building pancakes from the bottom where the stress / load is greatest and the building falls into itself. That's the definition of controlled demolition.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
what are the chances 7 WTC fell because of good, old-fashioned SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION?


a chain breaks at the weakest link, and a building poorly engineered for a diesel fuel fire loses its structural integrity at the most heat-sensitive spot....i'll leave the specifics of THAT to those on the board with real engineering experience.....but in any case, the damn thing fell like a S.O.B. under conditions that were vexingly insufficent to account for that. so, does one HAVE to be an engineer to assert such things?

it really looked like the entire interior of that building dropped like a house of cards, leaving an unsupported outer "skin" which then promptly collapsed in perfect fashion. it'd be seen by everybody as a shocking, outrageous building FAILURE if not for the context it occurred in.....which leads me to my final musing:

it's strange how "context" can swallow things up, and render them insignificant.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Hey, weren't these the same guys that had their hands in the 7 billion dollar clean (my opinion)up of the demolition that they performed on the WTC.


No, I don't think so. But you can bet your dot dot dot they were there checking it out. Do you think the insurance company would have coughed up the bucks if there was even a hint of foul play?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
That's exactly it. There's no sign or evidence of any explosives placed anywhere.


If there are true signs, I would venture they are deeper in the building itself, as that is where the main columns are - hence that is the steel to be cut, and naturally also on the outer shell, but at lesser intensity so that the center of the structure begin its fall that millisecond sooner.




The building falls from the top down, each floor pancaking the one underneath in succession.


Can be part self-weight, part demo. Those other charges on every so many floors (structure dependent) are to ensure that the self-collapse is successful. Clean demo jobs are a result of those two factors working together.




A few lower windows pop out, probably from the air pressure or gas explosions, but the structure is undamaged below the falling floors.


This can also be from the extreme reverberation of the building dropping. Building, just as bridges, do move, they are not stationary absolute. As those top floors are dropping, each floor under the falling floor is also moving as in that pancake effect, but the full force not being there would put that lesser force on the walls and steel itslef, yet glass does not move within its core direction - ie: hold the edges and push together, glass not flexing but very minutely (industrial grade).

===============================

Just for tidbit - demo shows are not my only knowledge, my 3yrs of service time was within the confines of demolition.

Don't think I am defending a non-conspiracy stance, I think the whole WTC/Pent thing is BS from somewhere.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Hey, weren't these the same guys that had their hands in the 7 billion dollar clean (my opinion)up of the demolition that they performed on the WTC.


You may be referring to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Buildings clean-up, of which they were contracted.

Misfit



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor was right
what are the chances 7 WTC fell because of good, old-fashioned SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION?



Finally!!


The whole complex is suspect IMO. The concrete in the towers was pulverized into powder, the steel tore apart, welds broke, beams melted, all raising eyebrows and conspiracy theories about thermite explosives and the NWO... but what about the good old palm greasing construction trade?

That's where I'd put my bet..



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
If there are true signs, I would venture they are deeper in the building itself, as that is where the main columns are - hence that is the steel to be cut, and naturally also on the outer shell, but at lesser intensity so that the center of the structure begin its fall that millisecond sooner.


Yes, and I learned (you probably knew) that steel structured buildings have a whole different set of demolition problems. The charges have to be placed on either side of a beam and timed so exactly that one doesn't blow the other off before they can cut through the beam. For a building the size of the WTC towers, you're talking about thousands of charges timed to that level of exactness.



Just for tidbit - demo shows are not my only knowledge, my 3yrs of service time was within the confines of demolition.


Awesome. What's your opinion of the tower collapses then?



[edit on 7/4/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by Lanotom
Hey, weren't these the same guys that had their hands in the 7 billion dollar clean (my opinion)up of the demolition that they performed on the WTC.


You may be referring to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Buildings clean-up, of which they were contracted.

Misfit


No they were involved.

Quote:CDI was initially retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc., one of the site's four main cleanup management contractors, to assess debris removal in its sector that includes the former Two WTC and several smaller buildings.

911research.wtc7.net...

www.wasteage.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
No they were involved.

Is there a thought of a matter to this? Or just an observation?

Misfit



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by Lanotom
No they were involved.

Is there a thought of a matter to this? Or just an observation?

Misfit


Some friends and I are compiling a very interesting facts file and CDI happens to be a link in the connection.

There are also many videos that were shown on television on 9/11 that are no longer available elsewhere. We have found many people who captured many of these broadcast using VCR Plus and were kind enough to either give or sell us copies. We will add these as links when the file is complete.

We are waiting to make every connection absolutely clear so that there is not even a 1/1000th chance that it can be debunked by the disinfo agents.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
There's a lot of information in this thread to cover, and this is my first post, so for convenience I'll just post a couple things I found interesting with the collapses, and we'll go from there.

First of all I'd like to ask those who buy the official story how the 'pancake collapse' itself started. The official explanation of the cause of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were that fires and knocked-out columns provided such a weakening of support that those floors gave out and the buildings then began falling in on themselves, correct?

My first problem with this is, that I would like to have explained to me, is why the buildings collapsed when they did. It's no secret that jet fuel burns very quickly. I believe it's been estimated that the jet fuel in either building had burned up completely between 10 and 20 minutes or so after each of their impacts. At any rate, the fires lost an immense amount of intensity around those times. Afterwards, the fires went on to feed off of office fires; off of furnishings and flammable parts of the building itself, no longer feeding off the jet fuel. It's also no secret that office furnishings burn more weakly than jet fuel, giving off less heat.

If you watch video coverage, the initial clouds are huge, and gray. The smoke is billowing out. That's because the fires are being fed by jet fuel, and we are told they are burning very intensely, which is evident by the amount of smoke and it's color.

Around the times that the jet fuel burns away, there is less smoke coming from the building, and it's much darker. Again, you can look at video for this if you want proof of it, or photographs. Dark smoke, especially when the volume is also decreasing, is a clear indication of weakening fire. At the point of lessening smoke, and it turning black, the fires are losing much of their intensity and of course burning more cooly. It would not make sense for the fires to be hotter at this time, because, to recap once more, the smoke had turned black (indicating an unhealthy burn), there was less smoke, and the fire's initial fuel source had apparently by this time depleted. No surprise; jet fuel burns very quickly.

Here's a photo of the clouds, billowing gray, and with more smoke than would later be present:



And here's a photo of the clouds as they would later appear: black, smaller, and obviously dying:




So the clouds suggest a weakening, dying fire. So what?

Well, which are hotter: healthier, more intense fires fed by jet fuel and puffing big light clouds, or unhealthy, less intense fires fed by office furnishings that cause only smaller, dark clouds? I think it's obvious that a healthy, better-fed fire, will be hotter. It simply doesn't make sense the other way around.

The conclusion we can come to is that the fires were initially hotter than they would be later. That makes sense, right? Well why didn't the towers then collapse while the fires were hotter, at their peak of temperature? Instead, they fall (rather suspiciously reminiscent of demolition) at a time when the fires were cooling off.

Let me make this a little clearer still. Which will be hotter: steel submitted to hotter fire, or steel submitted to cooler fire? Obviously, the steel submitted to the hotter fire would be hotter. If steel was exposed to a fire that was weakening and cooling off, the steel would similarly cool off. It would not make sense for the fire to cool, but the steel to continue heating. That just utterly defies logic and science. And similarly, cooler steel is stronger than hotter steel. It would not make sense for cooler steel to be able to hold more weight than hotter, more malleable steel.

So, again, why did the buildings collapse while the steel was cooling off and not while it was at its hottest? There was no added weight to further stress the steel beams, so added stress was not the problem. It doesn't make sense for steel to continue heating while the heat source itself weakens, and steel closer to normal temperatures holds more weight. So what then? What events specifically trigged the collapse? I've just shown that it is not logical to assume the steel was at its hottest, weakest state, and neither had any further stress been added since the initial impact of the planes.

So why didn't the buildings collapse when the steel was at its hottest, but rather after it had cooled for some time? It seems to me that the effect of heat on the steel had little if anything at all to due with the collapse, or else the buildings would have fallen when the steel was at its hottest. So that's the first problem I'd like to have explained to me.

The second one is why the building did not fall sideways, like a tree with notches cut into its side. After all, the planes did not go all the way through either building. One plane went through diagonally, and the other simply rammed straight into its building, and there's no evidence it even made it past the core columns. The perimeter columns had been knocked out of particular sides on each building, and yet rather than having either building fall sideways into the lack of resistance to gravity provided by the lack of support columns, both buildings fall straight down as if all perimeter columns were simultaneously knocked out. There was no reason for all columns on the damaged floors to all give out simultaneously, especially taking into account what I've just discussed about the steel not even being sufficiently heated. It cannot be argued that the buildings did fall sideways, because they simply did not. Admittedly, there was slight tilting during the first couple of seconds, but the buildings still fell down and in on themselves, as any video of the collapse or photo of Ground Zero after collapse will show.

There must be some reason for why the building did not fall sideways, and further why the tilting mysteriously stopped after the first few seconds of collapse.

The third problem is the temperatures of the fires. We were told the temperatures were extremely high; enough to sufficiently weaken the steel, enough to cause a collapse. Industrial steel, such as used in skyscrapers, can hold several times it own weight (the exact number of times in the case of the WTC is not available as far as I know, but if it is, feel free to inform me).

No skyscrapers have ever fallen as a result of fires, which I'm sure you've already discussed here. There have been fires that have been testably more intense than those at the WTC, and that have lasted much longer, but did not result in any sort of collapse. Whole floors have been gutted by fires in some cases, and still no collapse. You can find examples of other such skyscraper fires here: 911research.wtc7.net...

When I say other fires have been testably more intense, I mean there have been other skyscraper fires that have had fires that accomplished more because of their greater intensity than the fires at the WTC buildings were able to accomplish. For example, in some of the fires mentioned in the link above, there was extensive window-shattering from the intense heat of the fires around the windows. The fires spread to other floors in some of those examples, as well.

By contrast, at the WTC buildings, there is no video or photographic evidence of any such widespread shattering of glass from heat. There are windows shattered from debris and the initial impacts, etc., but not from heat, or at least not many. This alone sets the fires back to the 600º C or below range, immediately. Beyond 600º C, windows begin shattering extensively from intense heat. Again, we did not see that at the WTC buildings. If the fires were as hot as they were claimed to have been, we would have easily seen the same widespread window shattering such as that in the other skyscraper fire cases.

Also, the fires did not spread beyond the floors that they started on. Fire going down the elevator shaft doesn't count either, I'm afraid, because the other examples of skyscraper fires being referenced did not have their fires spread to other floors by means of the elevator shafts. They were simply much hotter, and spread between floors themselves. And again, those fires didn't cause enough damage to the steel structures to collapse the buildings, so why would weaker fires in the WTC skyscrapers cause them to collapse? Let alone while the fires were dying, and let alone in a fashion that suggests all columns gave way at the same time!

So there are a few things for you guys to explain, those of you who buy the official story. A demolition would be able to explain all of it, obviously, but I suppose that's just a coincidence. So I'll start into this discussion I suppose with those points, if it's alright with you guys. As far as the NIST report, it won't load on my computer for some reason, but seeing as how it's not in its final form yet (as if they'll have some corrections to make or something), and apparently 'open to public comment', I'm skeptical of how concrete their explanations are from the start anyhow.

Thanks.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 4-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Just want to point out that the top photo you posted was after the first collapse.

I'm sure you are aware of that.

Sorry I am adding another line so that my stalking mod doesn't have a reason to U2U me telling me about one line responses..




[edit on 4-7-2005 by Lanotom]







 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join