What about the WTC 1 Spire?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Fair enough. Here are several photos taken at multiple angles of a core column that was recovered and preserved in the collection at the hanger at JFK. Being a core column it is one of the very components that would need to have been sabotaged, and the only damage I see here is from the mechanical forces caused by the collapse of the building itself.



Can you post the source where you got the idea that every single one of the core columns must have explosives attached to them in order to implode a building?

If I'm not mistaken there were 40 + core columns, why do you suppose they picked out this particular one?




posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

So your explanation of how all welds failed on all four box columns .box columns that held up the cranes that built the towers but sheered off at the base on 9/11 because of gravity is....

The cranes arnt still there.

huh?


....and neither are the towers you refer to. They only held up the cranes. They were not a permanent part of the building structure and they were removed upon completion of the towers. Check the blueprints, if you want.

as you can see from this image, the cranes were set in what would later become elevator shafts. If you cross reference the photo and the floor plans, you'll see what I mean. This way, construction of the floor assemblies, including concrete slabs, could be done without interfering with the crane towers.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


did I ever say they the cranes were still there?

what im saying is that the four box columns,which held up not only the cranes but the wall sections they were placing , are nowhere in the wreckage .

they survived the collapse. Hence the spire. Now at this point we have a problem.

correct?



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


did I ever say they the cranes were still there?

what im saying is that the four box columns,which held up not only the cranes but the wall sections they were placing , are nowhere in the wreckage .

they survived the collapse. Hence the spire. Now at this point we have a problem.

correct?


And I am saying you have a false understanding of what you term "box columns". The x-braced column structure that held up the cranes was never a part of the load bearing system of the building. They held up nothing besides the cranes. The x-braced column structure that held up the cranes was entirely removed after completion of the structure- from top to bottom. On 9/11, those x braced columns, which can be seen in the photograph I just linked to in my last post had been removed for decades. There is absolutely no reason to expect to see them in the wreckage...

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

By the way, when everyone else uses the term 'box column', they are not referring to the crane towers, but to the square columns that are surrounding the cranes in the photo I linked to.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret

Can you post the source where you got the idea that every single one of the core columns must have explosives attached to them in order to implode a building?

If I'm not mistaken there were 40 + core columns, why do you suppose they picked out this particular one?


I am going by the very scenario that the conspiracy theorists are offering- the buildings were demolished by controlled demolitions, and controlled demolitions has a specific set of rules and procedures; to cut the support columns in coordination so the whole thing falls straight down. Otherwise, they're not controlled demolitions; they're just bombs.

Each floor was held in air by a horizontal brace connected between the internal core columns and the exterior perimeter, which means no floor structurally supported any other floor. That means that if even one collapsing level legitimately had enough force to cause the next floor down to collapse in turn without any need for demolitions, then ALL the levels were able to cause the next floor down to collapse without the need for controlled demolitions because they were all identical...and lets face it, the conspirators aren't going to risk discovery by randomly planting extraneous demolitions simply for the sake of planting demolitions. This is in fact the "official story" the conspiracy theorists continuously poo-poo.

In short, either all the columns would need to be sabotaged and the conspiracy theorists would be right, or, none of the columns would need to be sabotaged and the "official story" would be right. I'm not seeing any signs of sabotage on this core column. Do you?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Can you post the source where you got t...and lets face it, the conspirators aren't going to risk discovery by randomly planting extraneous demolitions simply for the sake of planting demolitions. This is in fact the "official story" the conspiracy theorists continuously poo-poo.


I think that is exactly what they did do. That way everyone argues over something that did happen but couldn't bring down the towers

Camp a says everything was normal
Camp b says it was explosives

Both a and b call camp c whakos.

Camp c includes anyone not in camp a and b.

A and b argue for years getting nowhere. Because neither is right and so neither side can prove their theory. Because the truth lies somewhere in c.

tptb meanwhile continue to do their thing without obstruction.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


did I ever say they the cranes were still there?

what im saying is that the four box columns,which held up not only the cranes but the wall sections they were placing , are nowhere in the wreckage .

they survived the collapse. Hence the spire. Now at this point we have a problem.

correct?


And I am saying you have a false understanding of what you term "box columns". The x-braced column structure that held up the cranes was never a part of the load bearing system of the building. They held up nothing besides the cranes. The x-braced column structure that held up the cranes was entirely removed after completion of the structure- from top to bottom. On 9/11, those x braced columns, which can be seen in the photograph I just linked to in my last post had been removed for decades. There is absolutely no reason to expect to see them in the wreckage...

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

By the way, when everyone else uses the term 'box column', they are not referring to the crane towers, but to the square columns that are surrounding the cranes in the photo I linked to.


I apologize you sir seem to be correct.

I thought I had read awhile back that as the towers tapered they used the outer box columns as crane supports. And it seems I was wrong.

Now how about how all those core welds failed after staying up for 15 seconds and swaying in the wind.thise joins were obviously well put together. Yet nearly all the steel in post collapse photos are short

Or how all the inner columns broke at the base their the towers. If gravity did pull the columns down it would be easy for the top of the spire to fall but the lower you go the sturdier it gets and eventually gravity would lose.to stability. I dont think that point is nearly ground level.

in the 13 meg photo why is there a circle around the core base with nearly zero columns? the last columns to shear off should be there.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

I think that is exactly what they did do. That way everyone argues over something that did happen but couldn't bring down the towers


Please think that statement all the way through. You're essentially saying the conspirators covered up the building being destroyed by controlled demolitions by intentionally leaving clues for people to figure out there were controlled demolitions planted in the building.

This is unrealistic speculation, to put it mildly.


A and b argue for years getting nowhere. Because neither is right and so neither side can prove their theory. Because the truth lies somewhere in c.


OR, as I try to point out, A and B might both be right- we really were attacked by islamic fundamentalists on 9/11 and the gov't really is covering up embarassing details about the attack, and all this confusion is being caused by false conspiracy-oriented information circulated on the internet by C for their own financial gain.
edit on 13-12-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
**ATTENTION**

As this conversation is becoming a bit heated, here is a reminder:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

Carry on.

~Tenth
ATS Mod



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Another_Nut

I think that is exactly what they did do. That way everyone argues over something that did happen but couldn't bring down the towers


Please think that statement all the way through. You're essentially saying the conspirators covered up the building being destroyed by controlled demolitions by intentionally leaving clues for people to figure out there were controlled demolitions planted in the building.

This is unrealistic speculation, to put it mildly.


No im saying the the tech used to bring down the towers is something we have never seen before.

But if you throw in a few bombs for looks you get people saying it was bombs.

And between the c.d. and the o.s. People will argue for a decade over who is right . Even if neither are. they will going to the evidence they want And ignore anything that contradicts them.

Allowing the real culprits to get away Scott free.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
 


No im saying the the tech used to bring down the towers is something we have never seen before.

But if you throw in a few bombs for looks you get people saying it was bombs.


So how is that different from what I said?


And between the c.d. and the o.s. People will argue for a decade over who is right . Even if neither are. they will going to the evidence they want And ignore anything that contradicts them.


...but what if the "evidence" really isn't evidence, but fake information being circulated by self seving parties who are only interested in their own financial gain? The hijackers all being illiterate cavemen, no interceptors were scrambled, Cheney issued a stand down order, the fires in WTC 7 were almost out, no plane wreckage was found at the Pentagon, thermite was found in the WTC dust, the false information being circulated goes on and on. Richard Gage intentionally snipping off the video of the WTC 7 penthouse collapse to mislead people on how WTC 7 fell down singlehanded instigated more pointless bickering here on ATS than I can count.




edit on 13-12-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


what I like to point out is the "dust" coming out of the floors just below the impact zone.

Smoke doesn't fall. And you can see this "dust" falling.

That says to me that it's concrete being destroyed and in so expanding.

It starts not long before the collapse. I think the tops of these buildings free fell through the concrete floor and pushing the exterior facade outward.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





In short, either all the columns would need to be sabotaged and the conspiracy theorists would be right, or, none of the columns would need to be sabotaged and the "official story" would be right. I'm not seeing any signs of sabotage on this core column. Do you?


I think you just made up your own rule. Prove me wrong and show me where did you get the idea that 100 % of the core columns would need to be sabotaged. Would the building not collapse if 50% of the columns were blown up?




I am going by the very scenario that the conspiracy theorists are offering- the buildings were demolished by controlled demolitions, and controlled demolitions has a specific set of rules and procedures; to cut the support columns in coordination so the whole thing falls straight down. Otherwise, they're not controlled demolitions; they're just bombs.


The towers did not look like a controlled demolition, they looked like they were blown up. Building 7 on the other hand was a classic.

Do you have a picture of support column from building 7 by any chance?
edit on 13-12-2012 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-12-2012 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


ok I think I see where you are coming from.
Your saying that no matter the cause (aka conventional explosives, mininukes, thermite ,or unknown tech ) it is still a controlled demolition.
And then your question is why would they leave evidence that points to a controlled demolition if they were in fact doing a controlled demolition?

Well that's easy . Because you have to hide your use of a black tech destruction with the cover of a conventional controlled destruction.

so those with questions get led down false paths.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I think you just made up your own rule. Prove me wrong and show me where did you get the idea that 100 % of the core columns would need to be sabotaged. Would the building not collapse if 50% of the columns were blown up?


So how does that disprove the claim I made earlier- the collapse of the upper section of the building legitimately had sufficient mechanical force on its own to bend this core column like a coat hanger and peel it open like a banana peel, all without the need of explosives?




The towers did not look like a controlled demolition, they looked like they were blown up. Building 7 on the other hand was a classic.

Do you have a picture of support column from building 7 by any chance?


I don't...but then I don't need to. The video of the WTC 7 collapse specifically shows the penthouse collapsing six seconds before the north facade did, and from the broken windows and cracks you can see right away how far down into the building it fell. Not a single controlled dmeolitions project in the world has ever demolished a building from the inside out in this way.

Little wonder why Gage routinely snips that part of the video off- he couldn't figure out how to incorporate it into his snow job so he simply pretends it never happened.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




So how does that disprove the claim I made earlier- the collapse of the upper section of the building legitimately had sufficient mechanical force on its own to bend this core column like a coat hanger and peel it open like a banana peel, all without the need of explosives?


How do you know that there were no explosives? What if they were installed on every second column? It would take out both columns around this one and the weight of the floors above would bend this column like a coat hanger. I'm not an expert but I don't think every single column had to be rigged with explosives. Common sense suggests that if just enough of the support is taken out simultaneously the gravity would take care of the rest.




I don't...but then I don't need to. The video of the WTC 7 collapse specifically shows the penthouse collapsing six seconds before the north facade did, and from the broken windows and cracks you can see right away how far down into the building it fell. Not a single controlled dmeolitions project in the world has ever demolished a building from the inside out in this way.


I think the windows were blown out on the west side of the building, penthouse was on the east. Unless I'm mistaken. Do you mind posting the video of the windows breaking under the penthouse?
edit on 13-12-2012 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I would like to keep this on the topic of the two steel spires. Not building 7 please. Plenty of threads about that.

I have asked many questions regarding the spires. Many are flatly ignored.

If you think you can add something to this thread then by all means do .



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
How do you know that there were no explosives? What if they were installed on every second column? It would take out both columns around this one and the weight of the floors above would bend this column like a coat hanger. I'm not an expert but I don't think every single column had to be rigged with explosives. Common sense suggests that if just enough of the support is taken out simultaneously the gravity would take care of the rest.


I think you are right. If a plane were to crash into those building and take out a number of columns, and the resulting fire would weaken a couple more of them, it may well be enough to initiate a collapse. It could also have been done with explosives, though the plane scenario has more evidence,



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

I apologize you sir seem to be correct.

I thought I had read awhile back that as the towers tapered they used the outer box columns as crane supports. And it seems I was wrong.



Thanks, there's no need to apologize. I should have spelled it out in more detail the first time. I'm an impatient person, many times. The rest of your questions require long complicated answers, and I'm not sure about all of them, perhaps I'll return to the thread this weekend and look at your questions in detail.





top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join