Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
A few posts appropriate to the subject at hand.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can read whatever you want into his replies.





posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You keep making this claim. Please refer to following drawing.


And you keep posting that drawing!

Those things can move in more than one direction Howard -- and the facades moving outward above the "buckled" columns give the impression that the lower columns are buckled inwards. That's why I cut out the facades located above the "buckled" columns in those images. This goes back to the same crap: NIST is not offering an honest look at the columns, and the "buckling" there is of the facades and is NOT of 10 inches or some other b.s. figure of the actual steel columns!

Edited for grammar and stuff.


[edit on 8-2-2006 by bsbray11]


OK, please explain to me how the facade can move independently of the steel columns.

The aluminum panels are attached directly to the columns. Furthermore, if you look at the pictures, you can see that each of the panels was only 12.5 feet long. You can see the expansion joints at each floor level. Expansion joints would have been necessary because aluminum and steel have different coefficients of expansion. Each individual panel would have been attached directly to the steel column behind it.

Therefore if the facade was indeed moving outward, as you claim, then the steel columns behind them were moving outward also.


I'm still waiting.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Nice links, Howard, but these answers aren't exactly reassuring:



Can't explain the molten steel.

I saw the footage. Yes ,, It looked like conventional explosive demolition. I saw a TV documentary about this event, the building's internal structure, the video of the collapse,and the points of structural failure. Personally, I was satisfied with its explanations.....But who can know for sure?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Like I said, you can read into it what you want. But I would like to point out these two comments, also:


The sound of metal cutting shaped charges is incredibly loud and difficult to conceal.

Access to each side of a box column is needed....there are outrageous exceptions.




[edit on 10-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Since there are NUMEROUS reports of "explosions" and "crackling" sounds AND the audio of the blasts were recorded on video.......


It safe to say that this was NOT concealed.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
There is a vast difference between the sounds of steel beams breaking and buckling, and bodies hitting the plaza to the sound of an explosive charge detonating.


Have you ever witnessed a building implosion in person?

I have.

Like the man said, they are loud. So loud that everyone on Manhattan would have heard them and known exactly what they were.

There are eye witness accounts that the collapses started without any warning sounds whatsoever.

There is NO evidence of the sounds of explosive charges before the collapse.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Wrong again.

Just because you dismiss the eyewitness accounts and video proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
DUDE. did you read what I said?


There are numerous eye witness accounts that there were NO EXPLSOSIONS before the buildings collapsed.

Just because you dismiss those, doesn’t make them any les valid.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Oh ok.

Got it.....so since some people, in all the chaos, didn't remember the explosives, but yet numerous others did including news reports that exist of these accounts, and that explosions were captured on video and still exist.........

hmmmmmm......I wonder which accounts would be more accurate?


BTW..................I'm sure you have seen the news reports and eyewitness accounts of explosions many times.

I have never seen somebody claim there were no explosions.

Prove it.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You keep making this claim. Please refer to following drawing.


And you keep posting that drawing!

Those things can move in more than one direction Howard -- and the facades moving outward above the "buckled" columns give the impression that the lower columns are buckled inwards. That's why I cut out the facades located above the "buckled" columns in those images. This goes back to the same crap: NIST is not offering an honest look at the columns, and the "buckling" there is of the facades and is NOT of 10 inches or some other b.s. figure of the actual steel columns!

Edited for grammar and stuff.


[edit on 8-2-2006 by bsbray11]


OK, please explain to me how the facade can move independently of the steel columns.

The aluminum panels are attached directly to the columns. Furthermore, if you look at the pictures, you can see that each of the panels was only 12.5 feet long. You can see the expansion joints at each floor level. Expansion joints would have been necessary because aluminum and steel have different coefficients of expansion. Each individual panel would have been attached directly to the steel column behind it.

Therefore if the facade was indeed moving outward, as you claim, then the steel columns behind them were moving outward also.


I'm still waiting.


Sorry Howard, I'm somewhat busy as of right now.

But the panels were not connected to the steel. That is a load of pure and simple bullcrap that you're selling, there.

If the aluminum and steel were connected directly, a chemical reaction would occur that would quickly corrode one or the other in the presence of water. I forget the specifics but if someone does some digging they'll find the info. A structural engineer that specializes in steel could confirm this.


Also note pictures of the facades coming off of the columns all over the buildings. This isn't brain surgery, Howard. You can look at the freaking photos from 9/11 and see how poorly the facades were connected to the steel, in multiple directions.

I'm still waiting for proof of buckling!


And until we see some actual columns buckling, and not aluminum panels flapping around, you're making some incredibly ignorant assumptions.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There are numerous eye witness accounts that there were NO EXPLSOSIONS before the buildings collapsed.

Just because you dismiss those, doesn’t make them any les valid.


Doesn't really work that way, Howard.

If many witnesses say they heard explosions, that's legal evidence that explosives were heard.

If many witnesses say they didn't hear anything, that neither proves nor disproves explosions, especially in such psychological states.

If a man is murdered, and many people did not see the murderer, is therefore everyone innocent?

But if a man is murdered, and witnesses attest to the identity of the murderer, do you not immediately have a suspect?



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

If the aluminum and steel were connected directly, a chemical reaction would occur that would quickly corrode one or the other in the presence of water. I forget the specifics but if someone does some digging they'll find the info. A structural engineer that specializes in steel could confirm this.



Correct. It is called electrochemical series. Steel and aluminum are not compatable. That is why you should never see steel bolts in aluminum without a neoprene (non metal) washer. Even then you would be better off with aluminum rivets instead of steel bolts because anywhere they touch, corrosion will take place.

Edit: fixed quote

[edit on 10-2-2006 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Like Griff said, they used dielectric fasteners.

Plumbers do the same thing when they connect copper lines to galvanized.

They use a dielectric connector.



[edit on 10-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Zaphod58 is just trying to find an angle with which to dismiss professor Jones' estimation. But clearly there would be a number that is accurate.

Let's say Jones was off by 100%.

That would mean that it would take 20 trips of 10 men.

Let's say he was off by 200%.

Now it would be 30 trips of 10 men or else 10 trips of 20 men.




So let me get this straight.

Greening, Eager and others are dismissed because they estimated or assumed numbers in their analysis.

Jones does it, and it doesn't reflect on his credibility at all?

It is obvious that Jones is just guessing when he throws out his "calculation" of 4000 lbs. This double standard of evidence is ridiculous.

Jones is also pushing this powerdown claim, with an unrelated quote to back it up.

How much more does Jones have to get wrong before he gets the same scrutiny?

My guess is never. It seems the "truth-movement" is more interested in promoting an agenda than in truth of any sort.

As long as something backs up your claims, whether it be an unconfirmed powerdown or a taxi that didn't move, you guys will swallow it up if it backs up your conclusion.

Isn't this exactly what you criticize the NIST report of doing?



Originally posted by Bsbray11

If many witnesses say they heard explosions, that's legal evidence that explosives were heard.

If many witnesses say they didn't hear anything, that neither proves nor disproves explosions, especially in such psychological states.


Speaking of double standard of evidence, didn't you post this earlier in the moved taxi thread?


Originally posted by Bsbray11

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've posted this before but I figured I'd post it again (plus the original post is apparently missing).

None of the witnesses were credible.

I refer all of you to an experiment done Elizabeth Loftus in 1979 regarding memory. As a basic psychology textbook I have (Psychology: Concepts and Connections) explains (emphasis mine):

. . .


Put short, again, ANY eyewitnesses to the Pentagon event are unreliable. I would believe that they saw something hit the building, or that they saw a second plane fly over afterwards (which the government has confirmed anyway - a C130 apparently), but as to what exactly they were seeing, I wouldn't trust. Some even attested to seeing a helicopter. This would be something that would be hard to fudge, especially considering the relative lack of claims of helicopters.

Did they say they saw a 757 hit the building? Not reliable. A missile? Not reliable. Ronald McDonald? Erm... Odd, and probably not very reliable.

You'll need the tapes to tell exactly what happened.




So which one is it?

Do you count the ones who heard explosions as legally reliable witnesses?

Or are all witnesses unreliable?

You can't have it both ways.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
You actually can have it both ways; inaccuracies lie in the details.

For example, in one of the psychological experiments involving memory that I cited in a Pentagon thread, participants were asked to recall whether it was the black man or the white man that had the knife in the graphic they viewed. Many of them recalled the wrong person due to prejudices, but nonetheless they would remember seeing people.

When it comes to the Pentagon, as I suggested in a post (you may have just quoted it, I don't remember), when people saw a plane, and reported it, you can trust they saw a plane. What you can't trust is the details.

When it comes to the WTC, when so many people reported hearing explosions, you could trust that too. Inaccuracies would again arise in the details rather than the fact that they heard something, which would be rather obvious and hard to mistake even given the circumstances.

Hope that clears things up a bit.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

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...





I was standing next to that building (WTC 7) when it collapsed, my fault totally. Warnings had been given due to the structure being compromised and transits trained on it showed it was failing. Due to the wind direction I was unaware that I had placed myself at it's base.

There was no demolition. I know that, I was standing there. No explosions, nothing! It failed. Has it happened before? No. Has it happened now? Yes.


(From the Firehouse forum, link available on request)




Boom, boom, boom, boom. You’re on the first floor. It goes by and lands. And so I just assumed it was debris. So when I first got there, I had that urgency to get in the building. Now I had this complete urgency to get the hell out of the building, but we were just afraid to make the move.

We saw an engine man, and he was under the north bridge. He was looking up at the building. We yelled at him to let us know when it would be OK to run, so he kept looking and a few seconds later, he started to yell all right, run, run, run. So we all took off and got underneath that northern walkway bridge. At that point I turned around to look up at the building and that’s when I realized that all that stuff coming down, that was people. It wasn’t debris. It was people. I turned away, put my back to the building.

Then you couldn’t see the top of the building anymore, it looked like it was as if each floor was exploding. As each floor came down, you could actually see the windows and everything blow out. Things were blowing out the sides. Everybody asked me later on how come people couldn’t get out of the way? I really believe that if you weren’t watching the building, when you heard it, it was too late, too late to move. We looked up and we saw it and you didn’t hear a sound.


www.firehouse.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Those are three witness testimonies, Howard, with one of your quotes having absolutely nothing to do with hearing explosions.

For the other side of the argument, look at the number of witnesses claiming explosions (as listed here, at the 9/11 Research site -- though additional sources may be obtained from simple Google searches).

Louie Cacchioli, one of the first firefighters to enter WTC2:


I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.


Google search of quote.

Ie,

Additional Source 1
Additional Source 2 (Google cache)
Additional Source 3

Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co.:


When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go. There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.


Neil deGrasse Tyson, eyewitness:


I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.


From a reporter, in 9/11, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold:


The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.


Another eyewitness from the same documentary:


I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions -- three thuds -- and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.


Another clip from the documentary, showing a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner, "American Responds":


...and all of a suddend it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.


So obviously you aren't presenting both sides of the story, Howard.

I could easily pull up many more eyewitness accounts. These are all listed here, and I'm sure that isn't the only site hosting such testimonies, nor does it host them all.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
My personal theory, which I may have sort of formed by merging together other ones I heard - I've heard so many now, it's hard to remember - is this: IF the collapse was helped along by additional forces, something I'm not convinced of, I think it was done with some sort of explosive placed at the bottom of the building which caused the core to collapse at the right time and drop downward, ripping apart from the floors, which ripped apart from the outer shell and caused the whole thing to come down. That comes from talk about big explosions in the lobbies, lower floors, reports of hot molten metal (don't know the legitimacy of that one) and footage that shows the center collapsing first.

I don't honestly know how well it would work or anything, but it makes sense to me. And I think it would be a lot easier and quicker to set up than traditional demolition methods. Also, as many people have mentioned many times, that method requires wiring between charges which the airplane impact would obviously sever and destroy.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The only problem I can see with that is in the collapse video you can see most of the core left standing for a few seconds, which then collapses after.
There is also the account of the survivors in what was left of the core in one of the towers after the collapse. It may have been the same tower, I don't have time to check right now but I think it means that the cores could not have collapsed by being blown out at the bottom.
On the account of the core survivors one of them actually talks about the wind rushing down the stairs from the collapsing floors knocking him off his feet.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
AgentSmith: You're right, I had forgotten about that. I also saw the video you mentioned where the core was still standing. Well, scratch that theory then.









 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join