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.

 

The truth about WTC attack...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
www.cbsnews.com...

After listenin to Alex Jones last night I was startin to believe you Howard but this convinces me that some things are missing or replaced from the official stories. Either they planned it or let it happen.


You haven't explained how the heat got to the steel. Why didn't it melt the window frames? Why wasn't the whole thing up in flames?

Further, becasue skyscrapers are allowed to 'sway', as soon as one set of support frames are knocked away surely it would immediately begin to lean. Therefore your saying all the steel melted at within roughly the same second allowing a perfect fall.

[edit on 29/3/06 by byhiniur]




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
1. so why didn't it topple to one side.

Because the main structural elements were weakened overall, rather than on one side, and from the heat produced by the fires, not the impact of the crash.


2. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent

Different buildings have different designs. I haven't seen any skyscraper of that particular design subjected to that kind of heat, with the insulation blown off the support structures too.

why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

It weakened the steel, which was exposed by the impact of the crash. It didn't turn it into liquid, it weakened it, enough that it failed at the critical points where the stress of the building, it mass and weight, were focused.

but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same

However, the impacts weren't precisely the same, no? Small differences can make a big difference, butterfly flaps its wings in china, you get hurricans in texas, no?

The BBC found that suposed hijackers were still alive

The hijackers are not alive.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
You haven't explained how the heat got to the steel. Why didn't it melt the window frames? Why wasn't the whole thing up in flames?


Heat rises. The hot combustion gasses rose to the ceiling level, where it heated up the thin truss chords and diagonals.



As you can see, the fires were pretty severe. Keep in mind that the WTC towers were four times larger than the Madrid tower.

For more information, I suggest you look at some of the data in the NIST report on the fires.



Originally posted by byhiniur
Further, becasue skyscrapers are allowed to 'sway', as soon as one set of support frames are knocked away surely it would immediately begin to lean. Therefore your saying all the steel melted at within roughly the same second allowing a perfect fall.

[edit on 29/3/06 by byhiniur]


Skyscrapers are only designed to sway a few feet in in any direction. Any more and the windows pop out and the drywall cracks.

The initial impact damaged a number of columns. The loads borne up by those columns were distributed to the other columns.

As the fires caused the floors to sag, the exterior columns lost their ability to withstand buckling. (this was independent of the temperature of those columns). Some of these columns started to buckle inward. The loads from those columns was transfered to other columns.

Eventually all of the undamaged, or unbuckled columns were at or over their maximum load limit. At this point any additional column failures would propagate so rapidly through the remaining columns so they would appear to fail more or less simultaneously.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Q.Why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

A.It weakened the steel, which was exposed by the impact of the crash. It didn't turn it into liquid, it weakened it, enough that it failed at the critical points where the stress of the building, it mass and weight, were focused.


Why are there stories of pools of molten steel that were in the buildings remains months after the collapse. Molten steel doesn't fit the story of weakened joints. Unless this story is a red herring... i get a link to where I read it.

Edit:www.abovetopsecret.com...
Theres also a video on this thread that shows 'molten something' flooding from the building. I though it all miraculously (sp) became damaged in the middle allowing a perfect decent.


[edit on 29/3/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As you can see, the fires were pretty severe. Keep in mind that the WTC towers were four times larger than the Madrid tower.


Is this your way of trying to suggest the WTC fires were worse than the Windsor Tower fires without saying it outright?

Because they weren't.


The initial impact damaged a number of columns. The loads borne up by those columns were distributed to the other columns.


Less than 15% of the perimeter columns in either tower were knocked out, and probably a lesser percentage of the deeper and thicker core columns.

The fires would've had to have done about 4x that amount of damage to get a typical floor to fail according to NIST figures on safety factor ratings for higher floors.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The fires would've had to have done about 4x that amount of damage to get a typical floor to fail according to NIST figures on safety factor ratings for higher floors.


Are you talking about the failure of the floor slabs or the floor columns?

Remember that the failure of the floor slabs will adversely affect the "safety factor rating" of the columns.

Furthermore it is an inverse square relationship.

Lose one floor slab, and the critical buckling load is reduced by 75%.

Lose two adjacent floor slabs and you've lost almost 90% of your load carrying ability. What would the "safety factor rating" be in that case?



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by byhiniur
You haven't explained how the heat got to the steel. Why didn't it melt the window frames? Why wasn't the whole thing up in flames?


Heat rises. The hot combustion gasses rose to the ceiling level, where it heated up the thin truss chords and diagonals.




As you can actually see, the fires were a orange color with alot of black smoke, similar to what you see in a burining oil well. The orange indicates a cooler flame, than a white or blue would indicate, and the thick dense black smoke indicates an abundance of fuel and a shortage of oxygen. Due to the fact that this was a oxygen deprived kerosene fire, far from optimal burning conditions that would be required for the fire to reach the 2000-3000 degrees needed to heat the steel. Also, just the fact that the fire is that hot does not mean that everything that the fire touches is exactially that temp.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wgatenson
As you can actually see, the fires were a orange color with alot of black smoke, similar to what you see in a burining oil well. The orange indicates a cooler flame, than a white or blue would indicate, and the thick dense black smoke indicates an abundance of fuel and a shortage of oxygen.


And it you look closely, you can see a lot of windows have burned out, that indicates to me a well ventilated fire.

An oil well fire isn't hot?



Originally posted by Wgatenson
Due to the fact that this was a oxygen deprived kerosene fire, far from optimal burning conditions that would be required for the fire to reach the 2000-3000 degrees needed to heat the steel. Also, just the fact that the fire is that hot does not mean that everything that the fire touches is exactially that temp.


Are you suggesting that because there was jet fuel in the building that the fire was not as hot as a typical structure fire? That it was somehow cooler than a fire that just involves furniture, paper, wood, etc?

Wow. maybe we should fight fires by spraying kerosene on them


Read this



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you talking about the failure of the floor slabs or the floor columns?


I'm talking about loss of structural integrity.

And I don't buy your buckling crap. Been covered enough already. There's no evidence of widespread truss failures on a scale that would even initiate a collapse. You just point to the columns that "buckle" once the collapse actually starts to make up for all the ones that are missing earlier.




PS -

Answer my question.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
As you can see, the fires were pretty severe. Keep in mind that the WTC towers were four times larger than the Madrid tower.


Is this your way of trying to suggest the WTC fires were worse than the Windsor Tower fires without saying it outright?


Were you just trying to suggest the WTC fires were more intense than the Windsor Tower fire?

Your language suggests you were, and otherwise you wouldn't have made that comment at all, when you should know full well that suggesting that is deceptive.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There's no evidence of widespread truss failures on a scale that would even initiate a collapse.


NIST has plenty of photographs in thier reports that document the sagging and falure of numerous floor slabs.

Without those floor slabs to anchor them, the exterior columns will buckle.

For those that have not seen them, the following are pictures of the exterior walls of the towers buckling inward shortly before their respective collapses.






posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
NIST has plenty of photographs in thier reports that document the sagging and falure of numerous floor slabs.


Ok, maybe you didn't read what I said.


There's no evidence of widespread truss failures on a scale that would even initiate a collapse. You just point to the columns that "buckle" once the collapse actually starts to make up for all the ones that are missing earlier.


Even if those columns are buckling from heat damage, which I doubt in the first place, that's still not nearly enough columns to initiate a collapse.

So what do you do every time I point this out?

You say "the rest of the columns buckled when the collapse started," and you post pics of WTC2 tilting.


I encourage everyone here to look up the definition of circular logic, or "begging the question."



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
i'm sorry 2 say there is none of Israeli died..in 9/11...but IS ONLY ONE DIED....IS IT WEIRD...THINK BY YOURSELF

IF U DON'T BELIEVE IT..LOG ON

www.september11victims.com



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
And out of 50,000 people that worked at the WTC less than 3,000 were killed. Does that mean THEY were all warned too? Or just extremely lucky



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by legolas
i'm sorry 2 say there is none of Israeli died..in 9/11...but IS ONLY ONE DIED....IS IT WEIRD...THINK BY YOURSELF

IF U DON'T BELIEVE IT..LOG ON

www.september11victims.com


What about the Irish or the Swedes? Only one Irishman and one Swede died in the 911 attacks also.

And what's more, not ONE single Dutch died in the attack!

Those bastards!



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
could u check d percentage of those citizen..if u wanna more information dude..



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%.

This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.

The following partial list of 76 Jewish World Trade Center victims includes many from companies that were located at or above where the planes hit. These include Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658 employees, Marsh & McLellan, which lost 295 employees, Aon Corporation, which lost 176 employees, and others.

usinfo.state.gov...


First, a question begs: Where did the precise figure of 4,000 Israelis come from? According to the Anti-Defamation League's Web site, on Sept. 11, the Israeli Embassy released a statement expressing concern about the 4,000 Israeli nationals LIVING IN NEW YORK CITY—few of whom actually worked in the World Trade Center. At press time, the embassy couldn't confirm this statement.

According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television www.paknews.com... The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."

The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times.

www.geocities.com...

If you're going to make a claim do the basic research and at least find the right information. It took me less than two minutes to find those two stories. There were 4,000 Israelis IN THE CITY. So what, did EVERY SINGLE ONE work at the WTC?



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I've figured it out. 911 was a Dutch plot to avenge the loss of New Amsterdam.

How else can you explain the fact that not a single Dutch citizen died in the attack?

AIVD is responsible. Theo Van Gogh was working on a film to expose the plot.





posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
i wonder how long a werewolf twitches after you shoot it with a silver bullet?

like this one.....



nothing inside the building can go faster than freefall. and yet that is what is clearly illustrated in the picture(and the video the frames are from has motion and trajectories which confirm it). overpressure doesn't cut it, because it is a highly localised 'puff' or 'squib' that is circled, and in the video, the 'demolition wave' can be seen clearly progressing down the side, passing freefalling debris(only soon after collapse initiation. as the freefalling debris picks up spped, it outpaces the timed sequence of bombs which are cutting the corner supports)

and, howard, i'm sure you know by know that a REAL pancake collapse would have taken about ONE MINUTE and THIRTY SECONDS. (this will be shown by history. i have a good rumour that even brazant zhou came up with this same number, yet didn't report it for obvious reasons)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join