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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
There are strict rules in this forum Tommy and I do believe you are in violation.

Posts without substance merely for the purpose of "cheerleading" are not allowed.

Get 'im agent smitty.




posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Let’s just have a recap on what the demo guys have claimed in this thread alone.

1. The Towers collapsing looked like a controlled demolition, and then it didn’t.
2. The sounds of explosives were recorded, and then they weren’t.
3. The visual flashes of explosives were clearly seen, and then they weren’t.
4. The Towers looked like an uncontrolled collapse but it was actually a well executed, unique demo job.
5. NIST was part of the cover up, but when it was pointed out they actually liaised and consulted with many private experts, they said I was talking crap.
6. NIST is a Government agency where they are actually a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration; they said I was talking crap.
7. There is a lot of support for the demo theory when in reality there is very little if any at all from professional engineering institutes.
8. They claim it would require only an elite few being in charge of this hoax, when it reality it would require a cast of hundreds if not thousands.
9. Bsbray11 claimed the Towers fell into their own footprint and followed that up by stating 80% of the buildings ended up outside their footprint.
10. Bsbray11 claimed the Towers offered up no resistance but the above statement proves they did.

These are but a few of the claims against reality, and are simply the ones I can recall off the top of my head.

So Hat Ripper is now back to his original claims which have already been addressed, so what does he do, simply offer up father unsubstantiated claims. I’ll let you into a secret pal I’ve seen you conspiracy web sits and offering up bunk from them doesn’t actually qualify as any form of valid argument.

Incidentally have either of you addressed the fact no Civil Engineering Institutes agree with you?
Have you addressed the fact no Demolition Engineering Institutes agree with you?
Have you addressed the fact no Structural Engineering Institutes agree with you?
Have you addressed the fact no fire and Safety Engineering Institutes agree with you?
Have you find one that does yet?
Have you addressed that fact that for NIST to whitewash the final report hundreds of people would have to party to it?
Have you addressed the list of thousands of people it would have required to be involved in this?
Have you addressed the fact no explosives where recorded visually?
Have you addressed the fact that no explosive devices were recorded audibly?
Have you addressed the fact that most of the Building ended up outside their own footprint

I’m sorry does it come natural to you or do you purposefully try to miss every point that is put to you?

Let me yet again spell this out to you in very simple terms.

Plane hits WTC 2 on floor 80
Now above a plane crash site is close to 125,000tons of steel and concrete.
This weight is static
The weight has lost some of the load bearing supports below.
The static weight is redistributing its own weight onto the remaining supports.
The weight is not redistributed evenly as the damage from the plane took out random sections of the supports.
As the redistribution of the weight was not even further supports are over stressed and snap.
This cause further redistribution of the weight onto the remaining supports
As other supports become over stressed they also in turn fail.
The resultant fires help by weakening the supports (the result of which may or may not have accelerated the redistribution of the weight)
After 59 minutes the weight has redistributed so much onto the remaining supports that whatever is left is no longer able to support the weight,
The above weight becomes dynamic.
Total collapse occurs.

Now is that so difficult to understand, is it so much easier to belief that the wildest conspiracy ever devised.

Now simply address the questions I ask or offer up proof of your wild claims, after all you belief you have all the prove you need that thousands of Americans were involved in mass murder of their fellow countrymen.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.



No bsbray11 we do not agree at all.
You accuse me of taking things out of context and do exactly the same yourself. I said and you know I said steel will snap when over stressed. The sound from over stressed steel to the point of snapping does sound very much like an explosion when it snaps.You can take this fact to the bank, I assure you, I have heard steel snapping and it really does make one heck of a noise.

I’ll tell you what, pal go onto a steel yard and have a chat with one of the steel workers. Ask him this question “what happens when steel sings?”
You have no idea what I am on about have you?
I assure he will.

When steel sings mate it is close to snapping and it is time to clear off.

Now simply address the questions I ask or offer up proof of your wild claims, it’s not that difficult is it, after all you belief you have all the prove you need that thousands of Americans were involved in mass murder of their fellow countrymen


[edit on 10-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Tripper,

I'll post what I want. If I think stateofgrace is right, i'm going to compliement him and stand up behind him. (or her I don't know)

Secondly, I think this conspiracy theory is a joke. I live in New York City. I lived through 9/11.

Maybe you want to talk to the 3000+ family members who lost a loved one. I lost 2 relatives and 2 friends.

Maybe you want to get one of these evil elites to confess to it. Until then I'll go on posting whatever I please.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Do you know any of the family members who have a lawsuit against the Bush Administration for saying that the Neocons are intimately involved in 9/11? Not all of the 9/11 families believe it was a random terrorist organization after all.

More then half of all new yorkers believe 9/11 was an inside job too since alot of people were there to hear the big explosions before the buildings went down.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Not all of the 9/11 families believe it was a random terrorist organization after all.

More then half of all new yorkers believe 9/11 was an inside job too since alot of people were there to hear the big explosions before the buildings went down.



Crowly? Where did you get this? Read my post right above you. I new 4 people who died in 9/11. None of those family members believe this. Also, a New Yorker. Where did you get your info?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Were they indeed "bombs" or the sound of snapping main beams, etc?


Good question.

I wasn't there so I can't comment. But I've heard explosives detonate and I've heard concrete detonate under stress and they are definitely different sounds. Concrete shattering under stress (I call it a detonation) sounds like a gunshot, not like any use of jelignite or dynamite I've ever witnessed.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Hat Ripper, your simplist view of the damage to WTC 2 is pure garbage as summed up your three little diagrams.

wtc.nist.gov...

The plane hit the south face and many parts exited the north face.




Parts of the aircraft that impacted the south face of WTC 2 exited the building on the north face and landed some distance from the building. In particular, it was believed that an engine exited the northeast corner of the building on floor 81, and a landing gear strut component cut through the wall on the north face near the northeast corner on the same floor. Images were examined to determine damage caused by these pieces in order to feed this information back to the impact damage and building stability models.
Several images taken from different angles and with different smoke and lighting conditions were
examined to characterize the damage. Fig. 6–3 is a view of the northeast corner of WTC 2 centered on approximately the 82nd floor. The 81st floor, where the engine exited, was piled full of burning debris.



Chapter 6 Pages 46, 47, 48 damage to the north face of the building.




The north face of WTC 2 contained the exit holes for some of the debris from the collision of the aircraft. This debris consisted of aircraft components, building contents, and possibly structural parts of the building. This debris impacted the interior of the north wall, blowing out windows, damaging exterior columns and removing aluminum exterior panels and SFRM from the columns.


Chapter 6 page 56 missing façade and fire proving from the north face




East Face of WTC 2
The interior of the east face of the tower was not impacted as directly as the north face, but nevertheless experienced damage to both aluminum exterior panels and SFRM. The damage was scattered across a large fraction of the east face on the 79th through 82nd floors (Fig. 6–12), including areas where the SFRM has been damaged or removed to the level of the paint (red arrows). Loss of SFRM was not found south of column 316 on this face of WTC 2, but since dislodged SFRM can only be seen if the aluminumpanels were also dislodged, and the panels south of column 316 were intact, this does not mean that the insulation was necessarily undamaged


Chapter 6 page 57, damage to the east face fireproofing
Chapter 6, page 64 shows buckling on east face of WTC 2
Chapter6, collapse of the building starts falling into the damaged section, page 67.

The building lent over towards the most damaged area, the east face. The damaged east side collapsed first taking the rest with it.

From one of your own conspiracy sites, these photographs show the eastern side of WTC 2 collapsing first, the precise point the plane hit.

911research.wtc7.net...

Maybe you really should learn to research yourself rather than relying on silly , nonsensical drawings.

By the way can't you think of anything more than changing my user name, somebody did that before you.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Stateofgrace]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
video.google.com... change

There are only two known buildings to of collapsed as a result of fire, WTC1 and 2.
Both fires burned for less than an hour and where nowhere near hot enough to melt steel.
It dosnt take a genius to work out the official story is big time BS.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The picture grace shows asks more questions then answers. If the building wasn't a demolition then the top of that building should have been many streets over.

Just doesn't make sense that an airplane can crash into a building designed to withstand much more force then that, then to have the building fall down completely.

The architect of the WTC was surprised. They took into account multple 747's and fuel complements.

Otherwise the WTC must have been very shabbily built.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The wheel and a column tree from the south face.






posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
The architect of the WTC was surprised.


Especially considering he has been dead for 20 years.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
cough! cough! BUILDING 7 cough! ahem!

Funny how everyone is so focussed on the towers yet everyone forgets the most obvious sign of controlled demolition there is. If building 7 WAS demolished, then WTC1 & 2 were also demolished. That's the bottom line.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Barcs]



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

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
9. Bsbray11 claimed the Towers fell into their own footprint and followed that up by stating 80% of the buildings ended up outside their footprint.
10. Bsbray11 claimed the Towers offered up no resistance but the above statement proves they did.


You must be really dense man. The material being ejected laterally would have absolutely nothing to do with vertical resistance in demo theory (except for what makes this such an ignorant statement: the common denominator here of explosives). And the rest has been addressed enough already.


Also look up what center of gravity means. The towers fell straight down, but didn't fall "into their own footprint[s]" per se; another thing that's been addressed enough already, that you still apparently don't understand.


Have you addressed the fact that most of the Building ended up outside their own footprint


Can you explain why this would negate demolition theory in the first place? I would think explosives from within the building sort of would propel material outwards, but hey, what does common sense mean anymore?


No bsbray11 we do not agree at all.
[...]
When steel sings mate it is close to snapping and it is time to clear off.


So why don't you clarify for us what has to happen to steel before it will break? And would you say that the steel breaking during the WTC collapses would have made the same noise?


Now simply address the questions I ask or offer up proof of your wild claims, it’s not that difficult is it, after all you belief you have all the prove you need that thousands [thousands = putting words in my mouth, btw] of Americans were involved in mass murder of their fellow countrymen


First of all, you keep changing your questions. They now consist mainly of "why don't all of these engineers support demolition theory?," and I could give you an answer but I doubt you'd believe it, because you seem pretty naive, and I doubt you would consider that corporations would ever exert influence over the heads of institutions that are where they are because of their industries. And those would be the ones that would step out publically to begin with without fear for their jobs, and even then only the ones that some media would report to us to make us aware of. You'd rather believe that these corporations would basically let themselves tell on themselves, assuming there's a conspiracy to begin with, which you don't. That kind of makes your rhetorical questioning here rigged to begin with, for not making those hypothetical assumptions to make the questioning fair.

I've also addressed this at least twice, and you refuse to even acknowledge what I say in response to you:


Have you addressed that fact that for NIST to whitewash the final report hundreds of people would have to party to it?


When they start with a conclusion and work within it, there's no hope for any other explanation, and no one down the ladder can change that without losing their job first. And most all of their employees are doing minor jobs that have no real impact on the overall report. This seems like it would be common sense for anyone who knows how bureaucracies work.


I’m sorry does it come natural to you or do you purposefully try to miss every point that is put to you?


I just get freaking tired of addressing them over and over just to have them reposted by you, over and over. After a while, yes, I purposefully ignore them, because I only feel like responding the first few hundred times to be honest.


For a belated "secondly," I want you to give us the proof for a progressive collapse from fire and airliner impacts alone. I want the full, conclusive evidence that you and all of these engineering institutions must have. Come on man, don't hold back. I've said before that I come to the demolition theory through a process of elimination, since NIST doesn't work for me. Change that. Make NIST's report make sense, and show us all of these engineers' proof like I'm asking. Obviously the fact that WTC1's 13 lightest floors falling through 97 more without slowing down is no challenge your made-up mind can't handle, albeit without any objective reasoning at all. So prove your case man. And I'll shut up.

I'll say it again.

Show me the conclusive evidence that you and NIST and all of these engineering institutions have that definitively prove natural collapses from fire and jet impacts alone, and I'll shut up. That includes initiations and global collapses.

If I had to guess, I'd say you're just going to tell me that you don't need to back up your claims since NIST has already published them. But I don't think they've published anything valuable. That's the whole point of me asking you this. You're awfully damned sure of yourself for what little I've seen them give, so you must be seeing some evidence there that I'm missing. So, once again, post it. And I'll shut up.


Originally posted by tommy1701
Maybe you want to talk to the 3000+ family members who lost a loved one. I lost 2 relatives and 2 friends.


Sorry, but, this qualifies your opinion how?

[edit on 10-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
theres NO reason to think that the top of the building would have fallen any differently than it did.


Yeah, there is, actually. It's called the law of conservation of angular momentum. The top floors started tilting. They should have kept tilting. But they stopped.

Only two things would explain why the top floors stopped: some invisible super-hero pushed back on all of that massive weight and compromised the tilting, or else explosives cut the connection to the fulcrum. And coincidentally, the outward tilting stopped when the building started falling straight down.


the building was designed to take the force of a 707 which is, after all, a much smaller plane. so that doesnt qualify as "much more force than that".


707s are faster with a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and would've impacted with more force at their cruising speed, than a 767 impacting at its cruising speed. Any building designed to take a 707 at any speed would necessarily also be able to take a 767 at its proportionately slower speed. You can find figures for this here. Look under section 1.5.2.


if i knew how to post pictures on these forums, id take the one posted a couple pages back that has a red arrow pointing to the puff of concrete claiming its a demo blast. if i could post id highlight a couple areas to show u why that puff is there.


Well, why don't you tell us why those puffs are there regardless of your inability to post images?


but, again as someone who has USED HE before, ill just make a reference to that pic, if it was demo being used to "control" the implosion, they WOULDNT USE JUST ONE CHARGE, THAT WHOLE FACE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE BLASTED TO MAKE SURE IT DID WHAT THEY WANT!!!


I think you missed a key concept here in that those charges probably went off at the wrong times, which is why they're apparent at all. If they went off when they were supposed, they would be with the collapse wave and would've just looked like the building collapsing floor-by-floor. I considered making this all in caps with tons of exclamation marks too btw but figured it didn't really make a difference.


you people say that having several columns wiped out will NOT bring the building down, but are more than willing to believe that ONE demo charge is sufficient to control that part of the fall. come on people. think about it for a minute.


Well do you think that there would have to be explosives on each and every floor if the buildings could've collapsed from only failing one single floor each with thermite? If you think one failed floor from jet and fire damage could collapse a whole building then you must necessarily also think that the same floor from proper thermite damage would cause the exact same thing. And that would still make the towers demolitions, wouldn't it? Have you thought about that?

Because what these ideas both ultimately lead back to, is that the collapses shouldn't have began in the first place because the fire wasn't causing enough damage. The jets alone didn't do it. If they did, the buildings would have fallen instantly. Common sense. It was ultimately the fires, according to pancake theories. But the problem is that there is absolutely no evidence of this.

The best that's been done, seriously, is just people like you talking about how bad the fires must've been. Well why didn't we see any glowing columns? Steel glows in broad daylight above 400 C. Why couldn't NIST find any columns heated above 250 C? They sampled over a hundred at least, and only two had been heated to only 250 C, which doesn't even cause integrity loss. Why was the smoke coming from the buildings darkening? And what would that indicate about the fires, and how they would have been able to cause a collapse? How could fires spread out and not even staying at any one place for any length of time cause a collapse across a whole floor at once?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Also building 7 was designed to stop the spread of fire...


Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.


sf.indymedia.org...

Also you have the sprinklers. Did all of this fail on 9-11.

And don't forget there was no plane to knock off fireproofing in building 7.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but you say you came to your opinions on the demo part of it based on your research, so i will ask you: what impact does what ive had to say about demolitions have on what youve read. ive said im no engineer, but i have worked with demo and no one has been able to show me that my opinions are wrong.

so having a demo guy in this discussion, offering information based on personal real world experience, does this, if not change your mind, at least give you some info to take into consideration when reviewing your theory?


I respect your opinions, and your experience and everything, but to be honest what you're saying doesn't really make me reconsider my position. I'll tell you why.

If these things were demolitions, and I believe that they were, then they most definitely were not conventional demolitions, in many ways. They were pulled off to look natural, to fool millions, and would've been totally unconventional from a technical point of view. Everything technical that would point to demolition would be concealed as best as possible, including the explosive expulsions, the sounds of explosions, everything.

To make it that much harder on us, the major institution I suspect to have supplied the technology here is the US military industrial complex. Not only would they not be limited to conventional charges, but they may have even used technology that isn't accessable to the rest of us. It's something that I think is very reasonable to assume. I think it would be unreasonable to think that they wouldn't use such technology if they felt they could use it, just as it would be unreasonable to believe that our military industry is limited only to producing the HE's the rest of us are familiar with.

So I appreciate your experience and all, but really I'm not sure how applicable it would be to such an unconventional event.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but lets say that 7 was demo'd. couldnt it be a case of insurance fraud?


The charges would've had to have been planned as much as months (or years) in advance, and set up at least days in advance. That would imply that Silverstein at least knew 9/11 was coming.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELMO777
video.google.com... change

There are only two known buildings to of collapsed as a result of fire, WTC1 and 2.
Both fires burned for less than an hour and where nowhere near hot enough to melt steel.
It dosnt take a genius to work out the official story is big time BS.


Did you forget about the fact that they were both struck by airplanes, genius?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Also building 7 was designed to stop the spread of fire...


Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was to be filled with fire-stopping material.


sf.indymedia.org...

Also you have the sprinklers. Did all of this fail on 9-11.

And don't forget there was no plane to knock off fireproofing in building 7.


The water pressure was kaput after the towers collapsed.

and the compartmentalization wouldn't have worked if the there were holes ripped in the face of the building from falling debris.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join