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.

 

9/11 - What has officially been debunked?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
From your source:

23:00
Fire started at the 21st Floor

04:00
Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)


That's 5 hours. I stand corrected.....and so do you Howard.

Edit: Nevermind...I read your post wrong. You did say from when the floors where ingulfed....my bad.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Griff]




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Howard, where's the evidence I've been asking for? Remember? Evidence that there was sufficient and proper damage to cause a completely vertical collapse of the structure?

You do have some evidence for what you're saying, right? Not just pointing out meaningless bits of trivia?


Whose standards are you going use to determine if the evidence of damage is “sufficient and proper? “

I think the statements of the fire chiefs is “sufficient and proper” enough to state that the building was damaged.

Whether this damage was “sufficient and proper“ enough, either by itself, or in combination with the fires, to cause the building to collapse is an issue that takes a qualified expert in structural engineering to determine.

The consensus among the structural engineers that I have personally talked to is that, yes, it was.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
From your source:

23:00
Fire started at the 21st Floor

04:00
Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)


That's 5 hours. I stand corrected.....and so do you Howard.

Edit: Nevermind...I read your post wrong. You did say from when the floors where ingulfed....my bad.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Griff]


I'd be willing to go plus or minus an hour on that timeline.


Also, the slabs appear to have been the waffle type of construciton. I suspect that these would have been more resistant to sagging than the WTC floors would have.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Whose standards are you going use to determine if the evidence of damage is “sufficient and proper? “


Just post some evidence for what you're asserting first, then we'll talk.

What I'm looking for is something that makes sense thermodynamically, i.e., knocking out columns in a corner should not cause other columns one or two thirds of the building away to fail perfectly vertically. If you or NIST or anyone else posing an expert tries to sell this then you're really dense for assuming many people are going to buy it. If I were you I would be thankful that so many people are emotionally involved here, or you'd be out of your job by now bucko.


The consensus among the structural engineers that I have personally talked to is that, yes, it was.


Well I really hope for the sake of humanity that those engineers aren't practicing.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sure, after you provide some calculations or an engineering assessment to support your claim.


I am not a structural engineer and neither are you. However, since the Sudden Freefall Steel Building Collapse Theory is a totally new scientific hypothesis, championed here by you, the onus is therefore on you to provide calculations that show it is possible and that the hypothesis is valid.





The rest of the building, including the West penthouse, is still perfectly intact after the collapse of the smaller Eastern penthouse, which would imply that not only all the exterior columns, but also the middle and Western internal columns were all intact at the time of sudden collapse. Please show us your calculations illustrating how simultaneous, resistance-free collapse of the remaining structure occured. And don't forget the hotspots while you're there. I'm curious how that fits into your theory.


SMR

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   


My article also pointed out that it is historically unprecedented for airplane strikes and/or fires to destroy large steel-frame structures. My opinion is that this should be good reason to be suspicious about the official story (and I'm still suspicious at least to some extent), but many readers pointed out that there is always a first time for everything. They note that in many ways, the events of 9-11 were indeed historically unprecedented, so it was hardly fair of me to use precedent as if it were substantial evidence.

Thats just great, really.That right there proves we were wrong all along because this guy felt bad about leaving out the fact that [] HAPPENS!
Yeah, I um, change my mind because, um, there's a first time for everything...


Who are these people? What is going on that so many who once said they do not believe a word of the official story, are now changing their minds with little reason?


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 22/4/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Ermmm. If I could just bring us back on topic here. I didn't really want this to turn into a debate. The point was simply that the fires in building 7 were a lot bigger than initially claimed. That still does not indicate in the least that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel support beems as claimed in the FEMA report. I'd love to see someone chemically prove that the fires could have gotten hot enough to do so.

www.911myths.com...

^Again, watch this video. I highly doubt that that is dust from WTC1.

I do wonder where this alleged 20 story hole came from, if wtc7 was clear of the main debris fallout zone.

Could somebody clerify the credibility of "Spiegal", the german newspaper?

Is there anything else that has been debunked?



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
There's a pic taken by the NYPD on that day that shows the South corner of the building with damage that extends about 17 stories. If you do a search on google images you can find it.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think you mean the below image. It wasn't 17 floors, it was 10 floors according to the FEMA report: "SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18".





Which goes nowhere towards explaining the free fall, symmetrical implosion of the building. Even if a photo emerges showing the alleged damage to the middle of the south face, it still will not explain the observed collapse, specifically the manner and rate. If it could, demolition crews would be out of business tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
That's the one. I was trying to go by memory. I'm not arguing either side of this one, I just remembered seeing the pic.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
OK, so why in the law of physics did the building not fall over side ways? There was a great chunk missing very near the bottom. Chop down a tree and it will fall the way you have chopped. Does this reasoning not go with physics of the collapse?

From the pictures i have seen, the building collapsed within it self. Very much like a controlled demolition that i have witnessed before.

Maybe i am wrong here for seeing the obvious?


SMR

posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Obvious took a day off September 11th, 2001

Common sense left as well and has yet to return to some still.

See, 9/11 was a day in which anything could happen.Even if it meant breaking the laws of physics.
When you are taken by suprise, you are inclined to believe what you are told because you are in a state of shock and really not paying attention.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
OK, so why in the law of physics did the building not fall over side ways? There was a great chunk missing very near the bottom. Chop down a tree and it will fall the way you have chopped. Does this reasoning not go with physics of the collapse?

From the pictures i have seen, the building collapsed within it self. Very much like a controlled demolition that i have witnessed before.

Maybe i am wrong here for seeing the obvious?


Its obvious to an open mind. It will never be obvious to anyone in denial or suffering from "protect this administration at all costs syndrome."

I was only made aware of this additional conspiracy theory about 2 years ago, it was a tremendous shock to me, and it kept me up a few nights thinking about the possibilities. When I centered my focus on who the beneficiaries of 9/11 were, it all started to become clear what happened that crystal clear September day nearly 5 years ago.

As unpleasant an awakening as it was, if its the truth it needs to be known, and it will be known. There are WAY too many people involved, very smart people who are driving a 'Truth Movement', something this country has been missing for a long, long time.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
OK, so why in the law of physics did the building not fall over side ways? There was a great chunk missing very near the bottom. Chop down a tree and it will fall the way you have chopped. Does this reasoning not go with physics of the collapse?


That reasoning is faulty, because a tree is not a building.

A tree is a soild object, a building is hollow. In proportion to its size, a tree is much stronger than a steel framed structure.

Even trees don't always tip over perfectly to the side, sometimes they kickback.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
A few interior columns failing beforehand causing portions of the penthouse to collapse prior to global collapse does not in any way, shape or form explain how the entire structure suddenly and simultaneously collapsed at a rate equal to free fall acceleration,


So are you claiming that there were two separate collapses?

the penthouse and the building?

this in spite of the fact that they occurred within seconds of each other and that there is visual evidence of the progression of one to the other? (i.e. windows popping out of frames as the floors shifted).

You are reaching more and more into the absurd.



[edit on 21-4-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Ok guys here is something from someone who has some experience in Emergency Incident Management.

As Stated Silverstein would not have any authority over any firefighters movement. If the fire chief thought the scene was getting unsafe at building 7 he would PULL the firefighters out and not have to call Silverstien for permission. The only reason the fire chief would want Siverstiens advise is if the on scene commander thought they should PULL the building.

Also, Maybe someone can explain to us that if thier was so much damage to the side of building 7 how come it came straight down and did not fall to the side.

External Source:
killtown.blogspot.com...

Just what I thought, he gives the "pull out the firefighters" response! "It" referred to "the contingent of firefighters"??? Yeah right! If that was the case, Silverstein would have said "pull them out", not "pull it". No one misspeaks that bad. The word "it" clearly refers to the building (singular), not a "contingent of firefighters" (plural). How condescending that he would refer to a contingent of firefighters as "it".

Also, it's already been reported that the FDNY never sent any firefighter "contingency" inside the WTC 7 and this order was made at 11:30 am...


"With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch.

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." - New York Times (11/29/01)

and then FEMA reported that the FDNY never even attempted to fight the fires in the 7...


"In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

It appears that the sprinklers may not have been effective due to the limited water on site and that the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day.

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." - FEMA (05/02)

So there is a conflict of facts here with the Silverstein spokesperson saying the Fire Commander called in the "afternoon" to say firefighters were attempting to contain the fires in the building and the news and FEMA reports saying the firefighters never attempted to put of the fires and had already been called back in the late morning and not "later in the day" as the spokesperson claims.

Firefighter tapes.
www.americanfreepress.net...

Video.
70.84.33.210...

Lost Tapes.
www.firehouse.com...
[edit on 22-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 22-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 22-4-2006 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Just to be precise about pulling the building... Silverstein said: "...they made that decision to pull..." They (Fire Department). Not him.

And commenting this whole WTC7 topic. Gov don't know why it collapsed. Some guys on this forum have their sure ideas. It looks like they are better than Gov investigators.
Fire caused the collapse or maybe damage which can be seen on only photo (I guess only photo we can see because I don't believe thats the only photo of WTC before collapse).
If fire caused WTC7 to collapse than it it must've been some sort of invisible inside-the-building fires. Yeah. Right. Where did the smoke went from that fires I don't have ideas.
If it was damage of one corner of WTC7 than why it fall straight down not leaned on the side where was that damage ?

[edit on 22-4-2006 by STolarZ]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Howard, You say we have to prove our theory, yet the 'ump'teen years of laws of physics does that for us, all we are qouting and suggesting is what the laws of physics tell us should of happened to that building.

Seeing as you're the one dis-agreeing with said laws, this must mean you've discovered new theories about physics, which I'm sure we're all keen to hear you prove, educate us sir, we are you're humble students


Then, when you've finished with us, go teach all the physics experts so that in future they can correctly explain and advise on building collapse' and other related issue's, with you're knowledge we can build a safer world with indestructable skyscrapers



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

HowardRoark wrote:
...disingenuous at best, and outright deception from those who should know better.


HowardRoark wrote:
You are reaching more and more into the absurd.


This is the sure sign of a weak argument. If you cannot debate without resorting to empty accusations and childish attempts to troll for a reaction, then do not debate at all, you rude person.


So are you claiming that there were two separate collapses? the penthouse and the building? this in spite of the fact that they occurred within seconds of each other and that there is visual evidence of the progression of one to the other? (i.e. windows popping out of frames as the floors shifted).

Yes, it would appear that the collapse of the East penthouse, and the collapse of the rest of the structure are separate events, as there is a distinct gap between the two events. NIST estimates it at 5 seconds.

wtc.nist.gov...
* East Penthouse Sinks
* Further Window Breakage
* No Movement for 5 sec
Global Collapse


The external structure and the Center and West penthouses appear to remain intact until the moment when global collapse occurs. The intact, exterior structure then falls and implodes at a rate equal to free fall acceleration. If this is not the case, please show otherwise. Before 9-11, this effect was only achievable by demolition techniques whereby most or all of the support columns are severed by explosives within a very short time frame, usually milliseconds apart. I'm interested to understand how this occurred with WTC7.



Actually, I'm not sure if you've ever explained your complete theory of how the free fall collapse of WTC7 occurred. Since you are representing the official story/interests here, could you please provide that explanation without further ado, instead of constantly sniping with rude comments at random points which other posters present? You also consistently ignore requests to explain the hotspots under WTC7. Could you include those in your explanation please?

On a side note, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers made some interesting commentary/criticisms re the NIST report.
wtc.nist.gov...




[edit on 2006-4-22 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   


yet the 'ump'teen years of laws of physics does that for us, all we are qouting and suggesting is what the laws of physics tell us should of happened to that building.


No, the laws of physics does not prove what you are claiming.

All I see are OPINIONS as to how you think the buildings should have fell over like trees. IMO that is garbage. A skyscraper is not a tree, it does not fall like one. I am inclined to think it would be rather difficult to get one to fall like a tree.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join