Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Could you direct us to the part in the FEMA report that claims this? Just a page number will do.


It's in section 2.1.2, which is general information on the structures of the buildings. The part specifically referencing the concrete slabs:


Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches. Outside the central core, the floor deck was supported by a series of composite floor trusses that spanned between the central core and exterior wall.


Again, from the FEMA Report, section 2.1.2.


Is this true of ALL buildings of all types of design and heights failing under any and all circumstances?


He was obviously talking about the WTC Towers, so this basically amounts to a straw man.

But can you reference any natural collapses that occurred anything even remotely similar to the WTC Towers did? If they obeyed the laws of physics without explosives, then you should be able to point to other collapses to illustrate the relevant laws of physics in action as buildings collapse.


Really?? A "top down" controlled demo? Can you provide us with more info on how that is done?




Instead of setting charges off in one order, you set them off in an opposing order! It's all to do with the order in which the charges are triggered; it's neither brain surgery nor anything that hasn't been possible for decades by now.

Or were you under the impression that all charges have to go off at the exact same time? Because that doesn't even happen in the most stereotypical of conventional demolitions:



I guess imploding a building like that is obviously impossible too, even though it's apparently what usually happens. Three different sets of charges going off at three different times, and that's your every-day job.

Maybe you can email a demo engineer and ask him/her how they can *possibly* manage to set off charges in set intervals, at different times.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Christophera
Your belief system is in for a shock.

The effects seen, taking 2 towers identically to the ground on 9-11 cannot be accomplished except with Optimally placed and optimally distributed explosives. Meaning they have to be built in. There is no way to do that throughout a structure otherwise. Even controlled demolition compromises that by just seeing that things are broken small enough to handle by machines.. At the WTC we have amazing "breakage", concrete reduced to SAND & GRAVEL. UNHEARD OF in the blasting industry.


With all due respect, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Are you saying that by looking at a picture you can determine how a building failed?


That is not a structural failure. That is a high speed series of detonations of VERY well contained high explosive that are VERY well distributed. We see no free gasses jetting out, it's all breakage.


Originally posted by VushtaThats preposterious. Hundreds of trained scientists whose expertise involves structural failure and finite element analysis all say otherwise, but you can look at a picture and prove them wrong??


These firefighters describe an approximate 75 millisecond delay between floors detonating. You can coerce and bribe scientists and engineers. It's easy, particuarly if they want to believe what you tell them happened. They accepted a structure that didn't exist. They failed to explain free fall and lost credibility. I explain free fall feasibly and realistically.

algoxy.com...


Originally posted by VushtaYou claim that the pulverization of concrete can only be explained by explosives.

Pulverization is how concrete fails under a number of circumstances. It doesn't bend. It doesn't stretch. It doesn't melt, etc. Under forces greater than its ability to endure it pulverizes.

That picture doesn't look anything like explosives were involved


Easy to say but the event belies any collapse and the lack of free gass jets exludes bombs.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm having a hard time with the explosives were built in theory.

How did it get done without anyone questioning why? It would be hard to do without anyone noticing during construction, or during repairs. 'Where do all these extra wires go to'?


RE: Wires,
The security phone circuits were used with digial counters for delay. They were installed the week end before. Parafin plugs were removed and caps set next to the C4 in the floors and the core.

People did notice. The fact was a part of the 1990 PBS documentary called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers". One concrete contractor threatened to sue for wages of men that were evacuated, unscheduled, from floors where they worked. A steel contractor had bid thinking his welders were going to do a butt weld in the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar of the core reinforcement, then the PA wouldn't let anyone without a security clearance do the welds, which slowed the entire project because their were not enough welders that had the security clearance. People noticed and it was a part of the documentary. Ask Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll. He remembers hearing of the floor evacuation.

Remember it has been 35 years and it was all done under a cloak of security and people were also trying to get a pay check.


Originally posted by ANOKAnd what about the fact that explosive deteriorate after time?

Personally I think they were planted during the weeks/months/year prior to 9-11.
There were lots of power downs, and plenty of opportunity at night to do this.
Especially when bush's brother was involved in the security.


You should really read the page, it answers most of your questions. Here is the answer to shelf life. Ten years in the manufacturers wrapping. Imagine encapsulation in concrete as being many times better.

algoxy.com...


[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
You can coerce and bribe scientists and engineers. It's easy, particuarly if they want to believe what you tell them happened. They accepted a structure that didn't exist.


Just to add precedence to this, this is exactly what happened during the investigation following the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and this was even brought up in court by one of the scientists.


On August 14, 1995, special agent Frederic Whitehurst testified in the bombing trial that urea nitrate, the claimed chemical compound which had been used in the bombing, was such a rare substance that it could not be found in the United States. Although Whitehurst confirmed that the substance could be used to make a bomb, he was not aware of it being reported in use since 1960 when the Australians discontinued its use because of its propensity to decompose very quickly. Moreover, the substance was so rarely used to make bombs that he was not aware of it ever having been tested in FBI laboratories.

During the course of the trial, special agent Frederic Whitehurst testified that the FBI concocted misleading scientific reports and pressured two of their scientists to perjure their testimony in order to support its prosecution of the defendants:


Source.

And then Dr. Whitehurst gave this testimony, which has been taken directly from page 16,337 of the official court transcript release:


Q: "During your examination of the bomb residue materials and the chemicals associated with the defendants, you became aware that the FBI agents investigating the case had developed a preliminary theory that the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center was a urea nitrate bomb?"

A: "Yes, that is correct."

Q: "Did there come a time when you began to experience pressure from within the FBI to reach certain conclusions that supported that theory of the investigation?"

A: "Yes, that is correct."

Q: "In other words, you began to experience pressure on you to say that the explosion was caused by a urea nitrate bomb?"

A: "Yes, that is correct."

Q: "And you were aware that such a finding would strengthen the prosecution of the defendants who were on trial, who were going on trial in that case, correct?"

A: "Absolutely."


Just thought I would throw that out there.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
People did notice.


Interesting, thanx Christophera for the reply....

I'll admit I didn't read too much before posting, I kinda dismissed this theory before really looking into it. Mostly because I don't think it matters that much, explosives were already in the buildings, or they were planted just before 9-11.
It doesn't matter to me, both indicate a controlled, planned demo. Inside job either way.

What I think is more important proof is the physics of the collapse itself, that imo could only have been cause by controlled explosives. No one has yet explained how 3 buildings fall symmetrically, any building that falls naturally will be chaotic and unpredictable. That's why they demo buildings the way they do...



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   


It's in section 2.1.2, which is general information on the structures of the buildings. The part specifically referencing the concrete slabs:


Thanks. But that doesn't support the claim. The claim was that FEMA stated that the ONLY concrete was in the floor slabs. You simple referred to the section ON the conctruction of the slabs.



Is this true of ALL buildings of all types of design and heights failing under any and all circumstances



He was obviously talking about the WTC Towers, so this basically amounts to a straw man.


Right. The Straw man is his generalization of collapses. Right?




But can you reference any natural collapses that occurred anything even remotely similar to the WTC Towers did? If they obeyed the laws of physics without explosives, then you should be able to point to other collapses to illustrate the relevant laws of physics in action as buildings collapse.


This is also a bit of a straw man arguement.
There never was a collapse of any building the scale of the WTCs so no one can point to an example..but this works both ways. Because no one has ever seen a natural collapse of that magnitude the claim that "It didn't look natural" is totally fallicious and an intuitive deduction.




Instead of setting charges off in one order, you set them off in an opposing order! It's all to do with the order in which the charges are triggered; it's neither brain surgery nor anything that hasn't been possible for decades by now.


If you didn't notice the graphic you posted shows the demo starting at the bottom and working up. This is not seen in ANY of the footage of the collapses. A minor detail?? I think not.
The graphic is also laughably simplistic in its information. Did you get it from a CT website?




it's neither brain surgery nor anything that hasn't been possible for decades by now.


Imploding a building is incredibly complex and only a handfull of companies in the world are qualified to do it. Your comment about it not being "brain surgery" shows you really know nothing of the process. Neither do I, but a little research would show you the complication of an implosion.




I guess imploding a building like that is obviously impossible too, even though it's apparently what usually happens. Three different sets of charges going off at three different times, and that's your every-day job.


You must be joking.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   


The effects seen, taking 2 towers identically to the ground on 9-11 cannot be accomplished except with Optimally placed and optimally distributed explosives. Meaning they have to be built in. There is no way to do that throughout a structure otherwise. Even controlled demolition compromises that by just seeing that things are broken small enough to handle by machines.. At the WTC we have amazing "breakage", concrete reduced to SAND & GRAVEL. UNHEARD OF in the blasting industry.


Thats your claim..wheres your evidence?
I'm skeptical of comments that state something along the lines of "Can only be accomplished by"..or "can only be the result of". These are usually the comments given when there is actually no evidence to support the claim.


I asked this:



Are you saying that by looking at a picture you can determine how a building failed?


You answered with this:




That is not a structural failure. That is a high speed series of detonations of VERY well contained high explosive that are VERY well distributed. We see no free gasses jetting out, it's all breakage.


You avoided answering the question.

Then I stated this:



Originally posted by VushtaThats preposterious. Hundreds of trained scientists whose expertise involves structural failure and finite element analysis all say otherwise, but you can look at a picture and prove them wrong??




And you answered with this:




These firefighters describe an approximate 75 millisecond delay between floors detonating. You can coerce and bribe scientists and engineers. It's easy, particuarly if they want to believe what you tell them happened. They accepted a structure that didn't exist. They failed to explain free fall and lost credibility. I explain free fall feasibly and realistically.


Again, you avoided answering. We'll never get anywhere like that.




These firefighters describe an approximate 75 millisecond delay between floors detonating.


Where do you get this idea from?? Firefighters claiming 75 MILLISECOND judgement abilities? between "detonations". Where do you get that claim?



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Christophera
You can coerce and bribe scientists and engineers. It's easy, particuarly if they want to believe what you tell them happened. They accepted a structure that didn't exist.


Just to add precedence to this, this is exactly what happened during the investigation following the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and this was even brought up in court by one of the scientists.


On August 14, 1995, special agent Frederic Whitehurst testified in the bombing trial that urea nitrate, the claimed chemical compound which had been used in the bombing, was such a rare substance that it could not be found in the United States. Although Whitehurst confirmed that the substance could be used to make a bomb, he was not aware of it being reported in use since 1960 when the Australians discontinued its use because of its propensity to decompose very quickly. Moreover, the substance was so rarely used to make bombs that he was not aware of it ever having been tested in FBI laboratories.

During the course of the trial, special agent Frederic Whitehurst testified that the FBI concocted misleading scientific reports and pressured two of their scientists to perjure their testimony in order to support its prosecution of the defendants:


Source.

And then Dr. Whitehurst gave this testimony, which has been taken directly from page 16,337 of the official court transcript release:


Q: "During your examination of the bomb residue materials and the chemicals associated with the defendants, you became aware that the FBI agents investigating the case had developed a preliminary theory that the bomb that blew up the World Trade Center was a urea nitrate bomb?"

A: "Yes, that is correct."

Q: "Did there come a time when you began to experience pressure from within the FBI to reach certain conclusions that supported that theory of the investigation?"

A: "Yes, that is correct."

Q: "In other words, you began to experience pressure on you to say that the explosion was caused by a urea nitrate bomb?"

A: "Yes, that is correct."

Q: "And you were aware that such a finding would strengthen the prosecution of the defendants who were on trial, who were going on trial in that case, correct?"

A: "Absolutely."


Just thought I would throw that out there.



And what was the outcome of those allegations?



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   


.... No one has yet explained how 3 buildings fall symmetrically, .


What do you mean by "symmetrically"?




any building that falls naturally will be chaotic and unpredictable.


There was nothing "natural" about huge frickin' planes with full loads of fuel flying at full speed directly into the buildings. What are you talking about?




That's why they demo buildings the way they do...


As opposed to what?

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


Originally posted by Christopher
The effects seen, taking 2 towers identically to the ground on 9-11 cannot be accomplished except with Optimally placed and optimally distributed explosives. Meaning they have to be built in. There is no way to do that throughout a structure otherwise. Even controlled demolition compromises that by just seeing that things are broken small enough to handle by machines.. At the WTC we have amazing "breakage", concrete reduced to SAND & GRAVEL. UNHEARD OF in the blasting industry.


Thats your claim..wheres your evidence?
I'm skeptical of comments that state something along the lines of "Can only be accomplished by"..or "can only be the result of". These are usually the comments given when there is actually no evidence to support the claim.


I asked this:



Are you saying that by looking at a picture you can determine how a building failed?


You answered with this:




That is not a structural failure. That is a high speed series of detonations of VERY well contained high explosive that are VERY well distributed. We see no free gasses jetting out, it's all breakage.


You avoided answering the question.

Then I stated this:


Originally posted by VushtaThats preposterious. Hundreds of trained scientists whose expertise involves structural failure and finite element analysis all say otherwise, but you can look at a picture and prove them wrong??


And you answered with this:



These firefighters describe an approximate 75 millisecond delay between floors detonating. You can coerce and bribe scientists and engineers. It's easy, particuarly if they want to believe what you tell them happened. They accepted a structure that didn't exist. They failed to explain free fall and lost credibility. I explain free fall feasibly and realistically.


Again, you avoided answering. We'll never get anywhere like that.




These firefighters describe an approximate 75 millisecond delay between floors detonating.


Where do you get this idea from?? Firefighters claiming 75 MILLISECOND judgement abilities? between "detonations". Where do you get that claim?


The firefighters describe a 75 millisecond delay in detonation in their video testimony. Not directly but by mimickery. www.letsroll911.org...

Your question of "how the building failed" has an erroneous premise. I first corrected your error. Show me an image of the WTC towers suffering a structural failure and I'll talk about how the "hundreds" of scientists can be "right".

The scientists did not explain the event in the image and with your statement you asked no question, The application of a question mark doesn't make a question.

It has been shown that scientists will alter their analysis when pressured. The outcome is not needed.

Can you produce any evidence of the multiple steel core columns from the demise of the towers showing the columns protruding from the top of the towers as they descend? Here is what must be a concrete core.



[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Christophera]


MMC

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Here are photos of the WTC's core:


www.physics.byu.edu...

www.physics.byu.edu...

Here is what a building looks like when it collapses...

www.physics.byu.edu...

Check this out...

www.gieis.uni.cc...


[edit on 17-6-2006 by MMC]

[edit on 17-6-2006 by MMC]

[edit on 17-6-2006 by MMC]

[edit: resized image]
Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Thats your claim..wheres your evidence?

You again avoided answering the questions.
But anyway..
What erroneous premise are you referring to?

You keep posting a picture of the structural failure I'm referring to. Will that one do?




The firefighters describe a 75 millisecond delay in detonation in their video testimony. Not directly but by mimickery. www.letsroll911.org...


Well.no they don't. Do you mean that carefully edited interview that cuts off before they say.."but that must have been the building collapsing"? (not a direct quote)
Anyway, I don't remember them using the word detonation? Did they?



The scientists did not explain the event in the image and with your statement you asked no question, The application of a question mark doesn't make a question.


Im sorry but this sentence makes no sense. Could you clarify it a little?



It has been shown that scientists will alter their analysis when pressured.


Thats your claim. Wheres your evidence?




Can you produce any evidence of the multiple steel core columns from the demise of the towers showing the columns protruding from the top of the towers as they descend? Here is what mustbe a concrete core.


Sorry but THAT is a Red Herring/false premise/straw man all rolled into one.
Thats all you have to prove a concrete core?

But we're getting off track here. This thread you started stated that the rebar was coated with C4. Do you really believe that? Whats your evidence?



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
[edit: removed Entire quote of previous photo post]


Thanks for those pics.

Yup!. No steel in that second pic.

The third pic that states "This is what a building looks like when it collapses" carries an obviously false statement. Thats what THAT building looks like when it collapses.



Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]


MMC

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   


The third pic that states "This is what a building looks like when it collapses" carries an obviously false statement. Thats what THAT building looks like when it collapses.


I suppose you're under the impression that the top sections of building vapourise in mid-air, in a mushroom cloud, all the time...



[edit on 17-6-2006 by MMC]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
[removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]

Umm.. What??

Top sections--vaporize in mid air-- mushroom cloud??
What are you talking about? Millions of people saw the collapse of the towers. There are many many videos of the collapses from first visable signs of failure through to the point of visual obscurity. None..NONE show any explosions.

If the image you're trying to convey is that the picture you posted is some sort of event at the beginnig of the failure that started the collapse-- a sort of "BOOM" event--well thats just painting a false picture. You seem to be forgetting something--people SAW it happen. There was no vaporizing mushroom cloud "BOOM" and then the collapse.

Maybe you saw the collapse---it was on t.v. and in all the papers.





[edit on 6/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]


MMC

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The image is crytal clear. The top section was completely destroyed before any major collapse of the structure underneath. It should have went through it like an asteroid impact...

You can't photograph what's not there.




posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMC
The image is crytal clear. The top section was completely destroyed before any major collapse of the structure underneath. It should have went through it like an asteroid impact...

You can't photograph what's not there.






You can't photograph what's not there.


But you CAN photogragh what not there?? The problem is that the picture is a moment in time without reference.

Are you stateing that the pic you posted is the first visible event--and THEN the collapse started?

You know this is not true.

Can you link to any video of the collapse that shows this is the case?


MMC

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   


Are you stateing that the pic you posted is the first visible event--and THEN the collapse started?


No, there is a nice transition effect (blending) between the two, but it is inconsistant with a solid object impacting another solid object.

Its a highly controlled event...precision work.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
There always is a nice transition inherent in natural events.

But transition or not, you're saying that the explosion came first. Video evidence shows no such event occuring.

WHAT is inconsistant with a solid object impacting another solid object?
Are you saying that there were no solid object impacting each other??




Its a highly controlled event


Yes. Highly controlled by the laws of physics.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by Vushta]


MMC

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The transition should not be that smooth. If the bottom section collapse due to the top section falling on it, then it should have "punched" its way through the lower section. Similar to an asteroid hitting the Earth's surface.

It didn't, as we see in the photograph, it vapourised.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join