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.

 

Just how convoluted can you get?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
Maybe I have missed it, but does anyone have any reports of other steel frame buildings besides the WTC that collapsed due to fire? Also, does anyone know what happened to the black boxes on the planes?


The 3 WTC towers were the first in history to collapse due to a fire.

7 out of 8 blackboxes were destroyed according to the official story.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Shroomery]


The collapse of the WTC's due to airliner strikes is no surprise. While people may argue that this could not have happened, it happened just like the architect said it'd happen.
A few years ago, I was reading about Asbestos, the fire-retardant material that, while it is in solid form, saves lives, but when it becomes dust, causes death. While the buildings were going up, EPA took ASbestos down as a legal building material. The architect said that if a plane hits a tower above the Asbestos line, they will collapse within a very few hours, rather than after many hours with enough time to evacuate the people still in the buildings.

The fact that the towers of steel and concrete were going to fall if struck by such commercial planes of such size is NO mystery.
As far as how they fell, I have no idea what is possible, practical or feasible, as the articles I read didn't go into such scenarios. Do we have any seasoned architects or building demolitions experts in this discussion, or do we merely have opinionated know-it-alls like myself?
Because if we have experts, I have some questions about the OKC bombing!

As far as the dust being pushed out the sides as the towers collapse, are there people saying that is not possible? Why not? The towers were burning, the steel supports getting hotter and hotter, they finally collapse. The collapsing floor crushes concrete and office debris, the pressure created by the compaction forces the dust out, and the same thing happens all the way down as the floors are crushed by the falling weight. Now, understand, I'm no expert, just a couple physics courses and the love of watching blow-'em-up movies from time to time like any other red-blooded American male, but what I do understand is, the buildings fell, and this was known to be what would happen if the towers were hit by planes.




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As far as the dust being pushed out the sides as the towers collapse, are there people saying that is not possible? Why not?


Because the collapse had not reached these areas yet, and there is no reason why there should've been any concrete dust there in the first place. But yet it was blown out in multiple instances from explosions coming from the facades of the buildings. And it was blown out laterally for scores of feet.

Watch the towers start to collapse and you'll see smoke being pushed out of the buildings as the collapse reaches those areas (not before!). Compare the smoke being pushed out to explosions like this:



Not just dust being pushed out of the buildings, but concrete dust being somehow created and then blown out of the buildings well before the collapses reached those floors.

WCIP has just posted on this on the last page, outlining the problems with more detail than I have.


The towers were burning, the steel supports getting hotter and hotter, they finally collapse.


Actually, there is no evidence that the fires got hotter. Rather, there is much evidence that they began dying very rapidly after the jet fuel burned up. The fires were hottest right after the impacts, and then you can watch videos and see the smoke output from the buildings turn dark (indicating poor burn, ie soot in the smoke from not uncombusted hydrocarbons). With hydrocarbon fires, dark smoke does not mean the fires are getting hotter. It means the exact opposite. And similarly, before the collapses, the flames were also disappearing, etc. One of the buildings' smoke began to lighten before its collapes, but that's the only exception to the above. There's really no hard evidence of the fires in either building getting hotter as time went on. They had cooled and began dying out.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually, there is no evidence that the fires got hotter. Rather, there is much evidence that they began dying very rapidly after the jet fuel burned up. The fires were hottest right after the impacts, and then you can watch videos and see the smoke output from the buildings turn dark (indicating poor burn, ie soot in the smoke from not uncombusted hydrocarbons). With hydrocarbon fires, dark smoke does not mean the fires are getting hotter. It means the exact opposite. And similarly, before the collapses, the flames were also disappearing, etc. One of the buildings' smoke began to lighten before its collapes, but that's the only exception to the above. There's really no hard evidence of the fires in either building getting hotter as time went on. They had cooled and began dying out.


The plane impacted WTC 1 at 8:45.

This picture was taken 34 minutes later. according to your theory, the jet fuel must not have all burned up by then.



[sarcasm=on] Wow, one hour after the impact, those fires are certainly dying down! [/sarcasm]


Flames shooting up the side of the building means that the fire is dying down, right?




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Apparently since you could see the fires, they were getting hotter?



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

[sarcasm=on] Wow, one hour after the impact, those fires are certainly dying down! [/sarcasm]




I know when i need to bend steel i use a nice red flame, also helps having a lot of jet black smoke aswell because you see, steel reacts to that type of 'intense' heat most of all. Also if you really want the steel to lose it's integrity, when you get that red/smokey flame started up out in the open, take it to an area inside with very little oxygen and it will really start to melt that steel!
It's amazing, most people wouldn't think it's possible but we all saw it happen on 9/11.
[/sarcasm]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Leftbehind wrote:
They spent about ten minutes with the collapse at slow motion, showing "squibs" shooting air out exactly as you describe in the above quotes as impossible.


wecomeinpeace wrote:
...with entire floors blasting out concrete dust and air like a steam pipe riddled with holes.

...with whole floors blowing out further up. We did not.

No, we did not observe the phenomenon I described, neither in the Loose Change doco or anywhere else; a phenomenon which would be observed if the enormous static pressure differential Howard alludes to were reality.


Why exactly is the pancake theory not viable? Did I miss that one?

Obviously you did, which is why you would then go on to ask this question:

Which facts did they get wrong in the NIST report? Did they get any facts wrong in the NIST report? If so, which ones?

...the answers to which are here. My respect to bsbray11 for having the drive to keep repeating this stuff to every new person that comes along and says, "Show ME proof. I want people to prove it to ME ME ME! I don't want to research myself, I just want you to prove it to ME because my opinion is all that matters in this affair! And anyway, I've already made up my mind and it won't be changed, so "

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


ignorant_ape wrote:
the " million dollar challenge " is pathetic grandstanding - an unwinable " challenge " where the fox is in charge of the hen house

Of course it's "unwinable". It's unwinable because it's impossible. *shrug* But I'd liken it more to one gutsy rooster standing up to the foxes.


so i will ask again - why should we believe that explosives were resonsible , given that mechanical disintigration of the concrete would occur anyway

Show us how the concrete could be blasted into



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Obviously you did, which is why you would then go on to ask this question:

Which facts did they get wrong in the NIST report? Did they get any facts wrong in the NIST report? If so, which ones?

...the answers to which are here. My respect to bsbray11 for having the drive to keep repeating this stuff to every new person that comes along and says, "Show ME proof. I want people to prove it to ME ME ME! I don't want to research myself, I just want you to prove it to ME because my opinion is all that matters in this affair! And anyway, I've already made up my mind and it won't be changed, so "


Why is it that you guys on the pro-demolition side start insulting people when they bring up valid points? If anything your sarcasm applies to both sides equally as your side keeps begging for proof that progressive collapse is even possible, regardless of how many times it's been explained.

Look, I just asked for one fact that the NIST report got wrong, If it's so obvious maybe you point out just one small fact. Posting a 50+ page thread as an answer is about the same as answering with insults. It makes you look like you don't have any real answer.

I know, let's make this debate easier for you pro-demolition people. Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you, then you won't have to put up with people asking for proof.

Oh, wait.


Edit: BTW, just because "someone new comes along" doesn't make their opinoin any less valid. The fact that more people join the debate is all part of "denying ignorance". It seems that the pro-demolition case has no real proof. All it seems they can do is point at pictures of debris blowing out of windows and say "see, those are bombs, you are all idiots for not seeing my great wisdom". There are many explanations for such things, but only one requires thousands of people working together to commit atrocities on their own people. Like the title of the thread, "how convoluted can you get?".

[edit on 15-9-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
There are many explanations for such things, but only one requires thousands of people working together to commit atrocities on their own people. Like the title of the thread, "how convoluted can you get?".


And that's where you're wrong, it doesn't require thousands of people. Especially if their's a drill going on for exactly the same event.
Mixup here, coincidence this, mistake overthere.

Besides, why don't you come up with ONE explanation for the squibs that holds ground.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Well, it only took a few replies til this thread turned into the whole WTC-fell scenario, disregarding what the OP was talking about.
Maybe to bring it back on track .........


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the recent allegations / counter allegations regarding the " flash " prior to impacts at the WTC have set me thinking

the conspiracists allege that this flash was a missile launch

While I am a conspiracist, I don't think this spark was anything suspicious. My thought is that the sparking in question is 'arching' - the nose of the jet is FILLED with electronics - hitting a metal building at a high rate of speed with mega-intertia ............ zzzzzZZZTTTTT --- one HELL of a spark.

Like I've said in other threads on this point - take a sledgehammer and drive it into your electric meter or breaker box - you'll get the same effect.

Misfit



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
question 3 ) how did these mythical set of charges maintain cohesion druing the impact and fire , with no loss of integrity in any circuit
[edit on 4-9-2005 by RANT]


Don't take this the wrong way, but this question by you shows how little you know about explosives used in demolition. Just three floors could have been wired to cause the collapse, plane impact would not have affected this.

I see so many questions from disbelievers and they're all the same, they're way off-course and show a general lack of understanding into the capabilities of our great government.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
So if it only would have taken the failure of three floors to cause a collapse, why couldn’t the damage from the impact and the subsequent fires have caused it then?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Because the force of the piece of the tower above the impact zone isn't enough to destroy a building like that. When he says 3 charges, he means 3 well placed charges so the weight of the tower can do it's job.

Besides, not in ONE tower was the fire spread to all 4 corners.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
QUOTE : “ Don't take this the wrong way, but this question by you shows how little you know about explosives used in demolition. Just three floors could have been wired to cause the collapse, plane impact would not have affected this. “



Hey , this is the whirled weird web , I don’t take things ` the wrong way


But I DO know about explosives , it was my job at one point , admitted – I only worked on 1 building demolition – and it was boring as hell


Now the random points :

A - if “ only 3 floors “ needed to be wired – which 3 was it ?

B – if you can ` drop ` a 110 floor structure with only 3 floors wired – why is thes not an industry standard ?

In fact – as you claim this is possible – HOW can you brind down a building in the manner you claim ?

C – the failure started in the fire zone , so the plane / fire MUST have affected the situation



As an addenda to point `A` - why couldn’t the failure be caused by weakening from crash / fire , see also point ` c` ???????????


Others claim such things as :

1 – “ squibs “ are visible in multiple locations , widely separated

2 – the concret on ALL floors was ` powdered ` by explosive action – no mechanical disintegration occurred

3 – “ over 14 tons of explosives were used “


Their explosive theories are incompatible and mutually exclusive to yours


QUOTE :” I see so many questions from disbelievers and they're all the same, they're way off-course and show a general lack of understanding into the capabilities of our great government.

Ah – if I disagree with your theory – I myst be wrong – doesn’t that cut both ways ?????????



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
QUOTE : "Besides, not in ONE tower was the fire spread to all 4 corners."

irrelevant , look at the floorplan - the main structural members are the central core ,



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
QUOTE : " Show us how the concrete could be blasted into



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

As an addenda to point `A` - why couldn’t the failure be caused by weakening from crash / fire , see also point ` c` ???????????


- Like we've said before, the fires were never hot enough to affect the steel in a way that it could cause a symetric collapse.



irrelevant , look at the floorplan - the main structural members are the central core


Yes and of those 47 columns, probably 40 were still standing (look at the NIST report, 10 columns gone in their worst case scenario).



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
ROFLMAO - you are claiming this explosives theory - burden of proof is on you


There is no proof to back your case either but you seem to find no obstacle in that at all. You don't find this a bit hypocritical? Besides, we've already offered you enough info to prove the frames of the top floors were shattered right after the initiation of collapse by the disappearance of their momentum, and that the squibs could not possibly have been caused by air or anything else, really, other than explosives. And you guys manage to slight this off by claiming our science is wrong, but don't bother to show us how.


Maybe I too should just start saying "you're wrong" with a few clever sentences, and not offer any evidence at all. Apparently it's acceptable enough for you guys. Or just keep saying "prove it" whenever you cite the official explanations. Either one.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Why is it that you guys on the pro-demolition side start insulting people when they bring up valid points?

I don't think I insulted you, although I do admit I was being facetious.


If anything your sarcasm applies to both sides equally as your side keeps begging for proof that progressive collapse is even possible, regardless of how many times it's been explained.

It doesn't matter how many times you explain that the sun revolves around the Earth, a report by the Roman Catholic Church does not constitute proof of it, especially when it is contradicted by observed phenomena.


Look, I just asked for one fact that the NIST report got wrong, If it's so obvious maybe you point out just one small fact. Posting a 50+ page thread as an answer is about the same as answering with insults. It makes you look like you don't have any real answer.

What you don't understand, and what the purpose of my facetiousness was, is that we have all been through all of this crap in multiple other threads so many times, including that 50 page one which a lot of us (on both sides of the fence) put no small effort into. Then, to have someone come along and raise questions that have been extensively covered in those threads makes us go That's why I pointed out that thread to you. It's like when you're watching a complex movie and you're nearing the climactic finale, and then someone comes in and starts asking, "Hey, who's that guy? Why is he trying to kill the other guy? What's going on? I don't get it." What are you going to do, pause the movie for 20 minutes and explain the whole plot to them, or tell them they can watch it after you're finished?

So no, pointing out that thread to you was not an "insult", it is an honest appeal to you to actually read up on the questions of yours that have been addressed before, and then come back and pick up where we are all at. Geez, that one's not even my thread, it's Howard's, and is asking us to prove a negative anyway, but it's chock full of info related to the NIST report, which is what you were seeking. But if you're not willing to catch up on the debate, then it looks like you are just here for the thrill of arguing.


Edit: BTW, just because "someone new comes along" doesn't make their opinoin any less valid. The fact that more people join the debate is all part of "denying ignorance".

True, but if we're playing chess and someone new comes along and asks us if they can join in on our game of "Scrabble", we're going to hand them a book entitled "Introduction to the Game of Chess" and tell them to come back when they've read it.

"Rook to Bishop 4. Check."
"Lucky you! Double points! Wait, is that a word?"
"
"
==========================================

wecomeinpeace wrote:
Show us how the concrete could be blasted into "The fact that it happened is proof in itself." OMGWTFBBQLMFAO?!

But hey, you want me to prove that explosives can destroy a building? Sure, here ya go:




Gee, that was tough. Well, I've shown you mine, now you show me yours.

And the burden of proof is further on the supporters of The Lie to prove the ridiculous new Syringe Theory to explain away the squibs - a theory which not even the feds ever supported. The squibs can easily be explained away with localized explosions. But explaining them away with buildings somehow acting like giant syringes when the syringe has no plunger, and pushing millions of cubic feet worth of non-existent concrete aerosol down through thousands of feet worth of HVAC system to somehow only explode out a few windows is preposterous, flat-out defies physics, and is the very definition of CONVOLUTED.

How convoluted can you get....


[edit on 2005-9-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   

NORAD leading up to and the day of 9/11 was running covert drills
simulating the WTC and pentagon attacks. They had done this many times up to 9/11, and had 5 different drills that day. It confused many air traffic and other NORAD commanders. "Is this a drill?" they all said on those recordings.

en.wikipedia.org...
inn.globalfreepress.com...
www.infowars.com...

by 8bitagent]


Thanks for the links!!! I knew I had read/heard that but it was one of those stories that you had to watch the news at the right 5mins of the right day or ya never hear about it again.


I love how important reports just blip and then seem to "disapear", *sarcasm*

[edit on 17/9/05 by redmage]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not just dust being pushed out of the buildings, but concrete dust being somehow created and then blown out of the buildings well before the collapses reached those floors.



Curious, how do you know for a fact that it is concrete dust, did you sample it ?

Also have you read the account of those 16 survivors in stairwell B of the North Tower ?



That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.


The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.


www.newyorkmetro.com...

If the wind was powerfull enough to blow people off their feet, why couldn't it blow out windows ?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join