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.

 

What a controlled demolition really looks like.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   
And finaly www.sciam.com is owned by "Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH publishing group"

Holtzbrinck Publishers and Macmillan lead the field of publishing companies in the English-speaking world.

Among its publishers are:

U.S.

Bedford/St. Martin's
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
First Second Books
Henry Holt and Company
Palgrave Macmillan
Picador
Roaring Brook Press
St. Martin's Press
Tor Books
W.H. Freeman
Bedford, Freeman and Worth Publishing Group
Worth Publishers

Germany:

S. Fischer Verlag
Wolfgang Krüger
O.W. Barth
Fretz & Wasmuth
Droemer, Kindler, Rowohlt

U.K.

The Macmillan Group - including the Nature Publishing Group

----

it purchased Droemer, Kindler, Rowohlt and S. Fischer Verlag, two German publishing companies. In 1985, it acquired the book division of Holt, naming it the Henry Holt Book Company. One year later, the company acquired Scientific American magazine for $52.6 million. In 1994, it purchased a majority interest in Farrar, Straus & Giroux from retiring Roger W. Straus, Jr., and just one year later, purchased a 70% majority interest in The Macmillan Group.

Holtzbrinck published Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses - Not really relevant but interesting.

Best thing about this company is the owner is one of the richest people in the word according to Forbes.com: Forbes World's Richest People and other sources.




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I called all that out... I'll be waiting! I want my million bucks


[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vision Ammunition

Originally posted by tommy1701
State of Grace,

Wow. I just finished reading this whole thread.

I feel for you. You have been able to carry on with this "discussion" for this long. You sought of fell into the "conspiracy theory trap". (Don't feel too bad, I've fell into it a time or two also). One that has no basis in fact, there never has to be concrete evidence behind any of their claims.

I live and work in New York City. I watched every minute. Horrible. No words can explain it.

There are those who think that our government was behind and planned this - is totally rediculous.

Some sites you may find interesting;

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.publiceye.org...

www.sciam.com...

People really need to get a life. Good luck to you fighting off these guys. You know what George Costanza says, "Its not a lie if you really believe it".





yeaaaaaahh wooowhooo some cool thinks to some elite funded site's... hmm ill be back tomorrow with a list of who owns those websites I bet a million bucks its all connected. What part of they own everything don’t you understand. Ohh but but it was on the history channel they told me so. Ummm well buddy I have seen every angle from all sides and beliefs and only one stands true... The side I can’t deny the proof that we did it. Man even on the very basic level of studying for yourself loose change proves enough. I never learned a darn thing from any video. But im glad they exist!

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Vision Ammunition]


do you get it now?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommy1701
Stateofgrace,

See what I mean.


Tommy, your posts amount to Colbert's finger wags. Posting something of actual substance might help.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
no disrespect visual...but...what?

what does any of that have to do with the discussion? maybe im just hungover and not thinking clearly, but if you are trying to make a point...could you simplify it for those of us that wont be really cognative for another hour?



I think he is trying to say that Oprah is behind 9/11 or maybe it's just people who arn't slackers or something.




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The PM article has already shown to be connected to the Department of Homeland Security via some connections at the top. And also debunked, btw, right after it came out.

9/11 Review put out a good critique of everything it says, for example, soon after it came out, rating things as supported, unsupported, or not analyzed, or some equivalent to those three things. A lot of the PM article is straw men and etc. anyway.


Where in the 9-11 review article do they debunk the PM article again Bsbray? We have gone through this one before.

The 9-11 review article basically supports many of the things said in the PM article. It wants to call the whole article a straw man because it didn't look into their pet theories.

9-11 review actually agrees with the PM about no holograms, no missiles, and seismic evidence etc. They just didn't like what they covered.

I don't think that agreeing with someone is called debunking my friend.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
They didn't agree on all issues, LB. Look at it again if you don't believe me. Here it is.

For example, in response to PM's "Intercepts Not Routine":


PM's claim that only one civilian plane was intercepted over North America in decade before 9/11 is preposterous and illustrates how sloppy the article is with facts. While the military doesn't report intercepts, the AP reported the following statement from one of PM's own experts, Maj. Douglas Martin: "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."


To the squibs:


If the floors "pancaked", sections of floor platters would have been found at Ground Zero. But photographs of Ground Zero show no evidence of pieces of concrete from the floor slabs or large sections of the underlying corrugated steel floor pans. Instead the floor pans were shredded and the concrete was pulverized and spread over Lower Manhattan.
[...]
This use of handwaving with vague, grandious quantifiers -- massive energy ... huge volume of air ... enormous energy -- is typical of the writing of apologists for the official explanation.

Sunder's explanation that pressure from falling floors was responsible for "shoot[ing] air and concrete dust out the window" begs the question of where the pulverized concrete came from, since the only concrete part of the towers was the floor slabs.


And PM claiming that demolition expert Van Romero only said the collapses looked like demolitions:


Here is how the Albuquerque Journal quoted Romero. " My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse. "


9/11 Review also rejects PM's statements regarding WTC7 and Flight 93's crash. The rest of the issues were the straw men, unimportant issues that shouldn't even have to be debunked in the first place. Those would've been thrown in just to make the reasonable info seem that much more unbelievable to the average Joe.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Read it again my friend.

In the puffs of dust section they provide no "debunking". They merely have issues with what PM says about the issue, and with how they presented someones quote. No where do they present evidence saying that the puffs of dusts were "squibs". They aren't even talking about what you and others refer to as "squibs".


They also agree with PM on many of the issues, including the seismic spikes. They see no evidence for demolition in the seismic record. Are you now saying that you have changed your mind and the seismic spikes are not proof of demolition?

Even when the article outright disagrees with the PM peice, they provide no evidence.

Saying

No amount of "physical damage to the south face of building 7" can account for these three collapse features:


And proving it are entirely two different things.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They merely have issues with what PM says about the issue, and with how they presented someones quote.


They were flat-out wrong about what that man said. This is one of those rare things that can be easily looked up, and is either right or wrong, and they were wrong.


No where do they present evidence saying that the puffs of dusts were "squibs". They aren't even talking about what you and others refer to as "squibs".


How's that? Expulsions of powderized material, and expulsions of powderized material. That's what I take the squib issue to be about, as we discuss it here, and what the PM/9/11 Review articles were discussing. The problem is that there is no precedent for air doing anything like that. The whole scenario of air doing that is extremely unlikely to put it mildly and I really wish you would look at those things unbiasedly and try to imagine what it would take for air to cause them.

Imagine every single aspect that you can, including the amount of pressure that could have possibly built up for some of them, being only a few floors into collapse, or others being about 50 floors down from the collapse wave. Imagine what pulverized the concrete some 50 floor downs, or how it got there so far ahead of the collapse itself. Imagine how much air pressure can accumulate when the tops of the buildings become almost totally open to the atmosphere during the collapses. Take all of this into account and really think man. Air never does stuff like this. When air pressure causes things to bust or close or etc., it's always straightforward and logical. Trying to compress air with something equivalent to a giant cheese grater is not logical; air leaks and no pressure accumulates. When you take all of those variables into consideration for the WTC it's definitely not a straightforward problem, and you have to admit, even if you do think it was still air, that it at least does not appear to make sense on the surface, and that these things have not been properly explained by anyone.


They also agree with PM on many of the issues, including the seismic spikes. They see no evidence for demolition in the seismic record. Are you now saying that you have changed your mind and the seismic spikes are not proof of demolition?


I've never really argued that in the first place. Honestly I don't know much about seismic records anyway.


Saying

No amount of "physical damage to the south face of building 7" can account for these three collapse features:


And proving it are entirely two different things.


Saying the opposite and proving it are also entirely different, but NIST is doing the same thing that 9/11 Review and PM are doing here, and they all often state opinions like that. It's something you can expect from anyone from either side.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bsbray11 Imagine how much air pressure can accumulate when the tops of the buildings become almost totally open to the atmosphere during the collapses.



I'm sorry, when was the top of the building completely opened up?

You can't even see the top of the building for most of the collapse, how can you say it was opened up?

I don't know why you continue to insist that this air pressure pulverized concrete. When you watch the video you can clearly see it as smoke billowing out the building before the early "squib" turns into the jet people use as evidence.

Air could easily burst smoke and debris out of windows. The strawman requiring the air to pulverize concrete is exactly what you accuse PM of doing.

Now while I've imagined this air pressure problem that doesn't match up with the world trade centers, you should imagine the immense amount of energy released by even just two floors from the WTC falling 12 feet.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pavil
I think Seekerof is refering to the beam snapping not from high heat but from high load on a floor once the pancaking started.


Steel doesn't "snap." I think this is what the poster you're responding to is getting at. It'll bend and tear under extreme stress, or else at extreme temperature, but what Seekerof suggested doesn't make sense. There's no precedent for steel behaving as he's suggesting. The sound of steel ripping wouldn't be confused with an explosion.


You're joking right
Steel snaps all the time. I'm sorry but are we diregarding the laws of physics now ?

Have you ever heard of tensile strength ?


After the yield point, steel and many other ductile metals will undergo a period of strain hardening, in which the stress increases again with increasing strain up to the ultimate strength. If the material is unloaded at this point, the stress-strain curve will be parallel to that portion of the curve between the origin and the yield point. If it is re-loaded it will follow the unloading curve up again to the ultimate strength, which has become the new yield strength.

After steel has been loaded to its ultimate strength it begins to "neck" as the cross-sectional area of the specimen decreases due to plastic flow. Necking is accompanied by a region of decreasing stress with increasing strain on the stress-strain curve. After a period of necking, the material will rupture and the stored elastic energy is released as noise and heat. The stress on the material at the time of rupture is known as the breaking stress. Note that if the graph is plotted in terms of true stress and true strain necking will not be observed on the curve as true stress is corrected for the decrease in cross-sectional area. Necking is also not observed for materials loaded in compression.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   


Steel doesn't "snap." I think this is what the poster you're responding to is getting at. It'll bend and tear under extreme stress, or else at extreme temperature, but what Seekerof suggested doesn't make sense. There's no precedent for steel behaving as he's suggesting. The sound of steel ripping wouldn't be confused with an explosion.


Wow how did I miss this one.

Steel doesn’t snap? I have actually had to reread your post because I simply could not believe you have said this.

I was simply going to restate the flaws already in your claims when you come out with this.

Believe me pal steel does snap.

Have you any engineering experience at all? I work off shore for Christ Sake( for the last 15 years). It is my job to work with moving steel structures. They do snap, they do part when they are put under too much strain.

Every single steel structure ever built is load tested and certified. It is the law, well in the UK it is. These structures must never exceed their maximum safe loads.

I personally have witnessed steel snapping. I have seen the sheer devastation caused by a steel rope rated to 100 tons snapping. Where do you think the broken ends go?
They simply wipe out all in their path, including two unfortunate individuals who happened to be standing in the way of them.

Steel beams like steel ropes really do snap when they carry too much load, they bend,buckle and stetch until it finally snaps.

If you believe nothing else I have put to you, belief this when steel snaps it is terrifying and when it does happen you really, really don’t want to be anywhere near it.


[edit on 10-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
State of Grace,

Keep going buddy. You've got them on the run. I just voted you for the Way above award. (whatever that is) I have two votes left. ?????

To those of you who made claims that I've posted "elitest" websites. What can I say? I do not believe in this conspiracy. Pretty simple. I don't know what your trying to prove by posting all the things owned by the hearst corporation and the rest of that dribble.

I guess it's probably because I am one of those "evil capitalists". I am one of those evil "elitests".


And in the words of Captain James T. Kirk, "Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect!"



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'm sorry, when was the top of the building completely opened up?


When the caps were destroyed during collapse. Watch WTC2 and in some videos you can clearly see it roll over, plus all of the debris falling over the side/being ejected outwards. It wasn't like the falling building was creating an air-tight tube. But is that what you think happened?



If you think that was airtight, with solid material being blown out laterally, and yet air still being trapped tight inside, then there's nothing I can say to you. We just disagree, clearly.


I don't know why you continue to insist that this air pressure pulverized concrete. When you watch the video you can clearly see it as smoke billowing out the building before the early "squib" turns into the jet people use as evidence.


The one that was 50 floors below the collapse wave? No fires down there at all man, and all the stuff that was coming out was the same consistency, color, everything as the concrete powder that coated Manhattan. It was also visibly lighter than the darker smoke.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Steel beams like steel ropes really do snap when they carry too much load, they bend,buckle and stetch until it finally snaps.


Then we agree. I said steel will only tear at extreme temperatures or under extreme stress. Reread my post. Otherwise it just bends, which produces heat from friction anyway.

The problem is that steel beams encountering only a few times more than their normal loads at most is not going to break cleanly, "snap," like Seekerof was suggesting. If you see any cleanly-cut beams from the WTC, they were either cut after the collapses, or else a cutting charge got to them. And like I said, the sound of steel beams being ripped apart wouldn't be confused with an explosion.


Originally posted by tommy1701
Keep going buddy. You've got them on the run. I just voted you for the Way above award. (whatever that is) I have two votes left. ?????


I have to hand it to you man: you're smarter than most other cheerleaders.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:56 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...



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

You have no evidence to support that contention.

I say that the fires were as hot as any other typical structure fire, which would mean that it would certainly be hot enough to weaken structural steel, especially thin trusses.


Wrong.

Your own NIST report says that there is no evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 600C!

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses half of it's strength at around 650C.

The steel at the wtc was certified by UL to still support two or three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire.

Plus it only burned for 59 minutes in the case of the south tower.

So you see.....according to NIST.....the fires did not burn long or hot enough to get the steel to reach temperatures necessary for failure.








posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Plus.....

If all of these other "typical structure fires" are hot enough to weaken steel so much.......why has there never been a single instance throughout all of world history where a steel framed building has collapsed due to fire?

And you forgot about the fact I corrected you on earlier that the wtc core was concrete reinforced....




posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
So although the official explanation is that fires weakened the steel enough to initiate the collapse....official evidence contradicts this!

Mr. Stateofnongrace prefers Greening's claim that it was the weight above the damaged portion of the building that caused the collapse which explains to him why the south tower fell first and got hit second. He even thinks it's a "miracle" that it didn't collapse right away!

The problem is that he forgets the simple FACT that the impact was on the edge at an angle and that the core would have barely been clipped at all!



And most of the jet fuel exploded OUTSIDE of the building which is why we observed the incredible fireball.




So not only would the south tower support core be so much more intact than the north tower.....but there would have been way less fuel for the fires!

But after a mere 59 minutes it collapsed catastrophically in virtual free fall speed.

Absurd.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Stateofgrace,

They got you man. You have your work cut out for you. But they got you!!!!!

There just waiting for you to respond....I can just see the droul hanging down their faces.

But, they got you......

Sarcasm is intentional.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join