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.

 

WTC North tower burned for 3 hours at 700 degree C in 1975

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
33 feet would definately give you discomfort in your ears if you don't re-adjust. When scuba diving, you are supposed to adjust every 10 feet or less if you feel discomfort. I knew it was 10 something...just got the feet and meters mixed up. Thanks.

BTW, notice how your thread about the Fetzer interview of the PE just went away? Seems no one wants to touch that thread. Wonder why?




posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Man, these 9/11 posts are tiring, we go round and round, but the simple fact is, that it's not very likely that 3 buildings could fall this perfectly without some sort of control. Actually the argument back and forth about the genuineness of the official story should have stopped right there with 3 near perfect collapses, because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. But no, someone is allways there to defend the official story to the end, no matter how unlikely it is?

Troy



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Troy, if the buckling columns were that evident, there would be a lot less questions being asked on this board by the members and the conspiracy would eventually fade with time but there seems to not be things right.

One of the bigger problems is, common people and simple people not understanding the collapses of the World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 and understanding exactly how they should of collapsed, what collapses look perfect etc. When they are told it was felled by buckling columns, you had an army of blind servants fighting that cause and it takes a lot of energy to convert those people into objective thinkers to show that "Hey maybe the evidence is lacking.. how did they fall..." and that feeds the movement that's currently proceeding right now, on a trial by error basis to find out just how the building fell and inconsistencies with how it fell.

Your post is good, I enjoyed it fully and appreciate what you have to say.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
www.youtube.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.youtube.com...

compare this controlled demolition to the twin towers.

1. no squibs like on twin towers. no puffs just flashes.
2. no flashes all over the building. just puffs of debris from twin towers.
3. twin towers collapses from top to the inside. in this video its from the lower part.
4. no big explosion on the base.
5. no overwhelming sounds of explosions like on this video.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
DeMitsuko,

1. No two demolitions are the same. I can show you many videos of demolitions that produce distinctive puffs of pulverized material; one demo without them does not negate their presence in demolitions, but just goes to show how much these things can vary in appearance.

2. Bright white flashes were observed in the WTC collapses, and can be found in both witness testimonies and some high-quality video clips. "Debunkers" usually suggest these were caused by light reflecting off of aliminum (though much would have been in shadow -- no sun to reflect), or electrical phenomena (an idea that also has problems), but nonetheless flashes were observed. I can get you more information if you'd like.

3. Cutter charges can be initiated from any point in a building, and then subsequently go off in whatever order they are programmed to. There were also reports of massive basement explosions in the WTC Towers (ie Rodriguez and many co-workers), suggestive of blasts also occurring there to weaken important structural members.

4. See above (3).

5. There are plenty of witness testimonies to explosions occurring at the WTC. What you make of them is your own business, but there were explosions. In the Naudet Brothers' coverage of 9/11, a firefighter even describes the collapsing of a Tower as occurring as if there were detonations on each floor, "boom boom boom boom" coming down, as he put it. Many reporters there that day reported that explosions just preceded the collapses, or "secondary" explosions before the collapses during the fires, etc.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


2. Bright white flashes were observed in the WTC collapses, and can be found in both witness testimonies and some high-quality video clips. "Debunkers" usually suggest these were caused by light reflecting off of aliminum (though much would have been in shadow -- no sun to reflect), or electrical phenomena (an idea that also has problems), but nonetheless flashes were observed. I can get you more information if you'd like.


These flashes you are referring to, if they are the same ones I'm thinking of, are sunlight reflecting off debris that is falling. Your contention that the areas in question were in shadow is the result of an optical illusion and no real sense of depth in the videos. When things are flashing in the sun closer to you, in front of an area in shade, then it would appear to be flashing in the shade. However it is not. Anyway they are nothing like the flashes in the CD video just posted.

There were no multiple synchronized flashes showing demo charges going off right before the towers fell.



3. Cutter charges can be initiated from any point in a building, and then subsequently go off in whatever order they are programmed to.



Really? So I suppose they could have demolished the Kingdome by first starting in the middle and then setting off charges up and down the building to have a middle-out demolition?

Where is your evidence that cutter charges can just be set off in any order? It seems to me that a lot of planning and prep work goes into these things, and that there is a good reason that they are timed the way they are.

It certainly would not work to set one off at a time randomly, so while it is true that they can be programmed to go off in any order, they usually set them off in a logical sequence and drop the building base first.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Masisoar,

I appreciate the nice comments, thanks.
It's just a shame we have to go in circles with this thing.

I just figure it's pretty unlikely that the official story is completely true. A near perfect chain of events would need to have followed the airplanes crashing into the buildings. And I feel like a lot of people here know this even without complete knowledge of skyscraper technology. I've heard about pancaking, buckling, and all that, but when we get down to the facts of the matter, those buildings were either designed to fall or they we in some way demolished by something other than airplanes.

I guess we just put our blinders on, ignore the false explanations and find the truth, despite the voices that tell us otherwise.

Now, one question we need to ask as, is, what are these new "freedom" towers really supposed to symbolize? Has this project taken off yet? I haven't heard about it in a while. The destuction of these buildings seems to mean something. The surrounding area was relatively intact with 3 towers completely demolished in the middle. This seems like a plan to destroy the 3 towers and nothing else. I mean if the plan were as simple as to "kill a bunch of people" missels and bombs would have accomplished that pretty nicely. The job is too neat, so, is there a big overall plan?

Is this a "we are now in control" type message? "Ha, ha, now we are going to erect our towers in place of yours."

Troy



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   


Now, one question we need to ask as, is, what are these new "freedom" towers really supposed to symbolize? Has this project taken off yet? I haven't heard about it in a while. The destuction of these buildings seems to mean something. The surrounding area was relatively intact with 3 towers completely demolished in the middle. This seems like a plan to destroy the 3 towers and nothing else. I mean if the plan were as simple as to "kill a bunch of people" missels and bombs would have accomplished that pretty nicely. The job is too neat, so, is there a big overall plan?


They are meant to represent the 2700 or so people who died for no reason other than they went to work that day. Victims of a radical religious group who are not finished. It is a beacon of the World economy, and they wanted to finish what they started in 93. If this was a plan to destroy 3 buildings, what is your explanation for the Pentagon and 93? Just use missles and bombs huh? Like this is normal in the US? man.....



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Victims of a radical religious group who are not finished. It is a beacon of the World economy, and they wanted to finish what they started in 93. If this was a plan to destroy 3 buildings, what is your explanation for the Pentagon and 93? Just use missles and bombs huh? Like this is normal in the US? man.....


Uh huh. Just as plain as that. Complicity by the government is totally nill. I highly doubt that and anyone who takes a moment to research the controversial F.B.I. decisions prior to 9/11 can lead you to think the same thing.. in an objective mind set.. looking for reasonability.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Really? So I suppose they could have demolished the Kingdome by first starting in the middle and then setting off charges up and down the building to have a middle-out demolition?

Where is your evidence that cutter charges can just be set off in any order? It seems to me that a lot of planning and prep work goes into these things, and that there is a good reason that they are timed the way they are.

It certainly would not work to set one off at a time randomly, so while it is true that they can be programmed to go off in any order, they usually set them off in a logical sequence and drop the building base first.


Really, I suggest you read Slap nuts' signature some time. Or re-read it if you have already. It's by a proffesional demolitions guy (the same company that "cleaned" up at ground zero and OKC bombing). To paraphraze...."by placing the charges in a certain order...we can make the building spin, dance or do whatever we want."

So, this arguement that a building has to brought down from the bottom is null and void.

Edit: Here's the actual quote toi be pricise.

Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:
"By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance." (Else, 2004)

[edit on 9/10/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The real question is why a quote, taken out of context means anything about WTC 7. Why is it that he is believed when he is talking about demoltions, but disbelieved when his company has explained that in their expert opinion none of the collapses were controlled demoltions.

Here is a response from implosionworld posted on 9-11 research regarding this quote.


911research.wtc7.net...

Subject: Re: Your Website

Thank you for your letter. We welcome and appreciate all reasoned
dialog on this subject. Here are our generalized comments:

1. We are aware of Mr. Romero and Mr. Jones statements, however they
both contain critical inaccuracies central to the explo-demo argument.
I would also question whether either has extensive experience working
in the explo-demo field.

2. Mr. Loizeaux's false and self-serving statements are designed to
market his company, and one would be wise to question anything he
says. He does not have a reputable standing in the industry.



If your going to use Loizeaux's quote as evidence, then why isn't Brent Blanchards quote evidence that they were no bombs?

Why is there a different standard of evidence?

How does implying that they can make buildings dance constitute proof that a demolition could be carried out with bombs that survived plane impacts and fires, and then depending on your theory, had thousands of charges in each and every floor to simulate a progressive collapse.

Flowery hyperbole is in no way proof that such a thing is even possible.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
First, thank you for posting this info.

I'd like to know why people keep bringing up the jet fuel making the fires burn so much hotter. Jet fuel does not burn like gasoline. This is the misconception that the Government wants everyone to believe. If you watch the tapes of the planes crashing into the buildings... you will see the jet fuel explode and burn off. That is the extent of the jet fuel burn. It vapor burns.

Thanks again for the post bro.

~Candyman~



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
And whatever appeared to be left, burned briefly. The Jet fuel fires didn't burn long enough to cause significant heat explosure to the steel.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
So what we are doing is comparing a fire to fully loaded plane smashing into a side of the buildings. Too much steel was comprimised in the upper and weaker floors. The mounting points of the trusses were damaged by impact and those fires burned extremely hot evidenced by the flare up when the collapse started. Did'nt you all see that smoke rising during that time. That was a lot of sh** burning up there. It's time to stop the conspiracy on WTC1 and ATC2 as the terrorists knew what to hit to cause this. Tilting the plane before impact (a roll, not a bank). Striking the side or corner of the south tower lower and using planes with the most fuel and closest to the site. I don't trust the government anymore than the rest of you but they did not blow up those two towers. As for WTC7 ???.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by AlabamaCajun]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Alabama, ask yourself:

A) Sources for the molten steel in the basements of World Trade Centers 1, 2 AND 7 after the collapses.
B) The loss of angular momentum in World Trade Center 2, resulting in symmetrical destruction of the tower.
C) How the inner core gave out simultaneously with the rest of the building when it wasn't even severely damaged minus 4-5 columns per tower out of 47.
D) Where are the pictures of the buckling columns that compromised the structural integrity of the World Trade Centers.

Just to start.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Can you answer the how of the 4 questions you posted? If you are asking them you must have a point of view.

1. What do you think the pools of metal were from?
2. How and where is momentum lost?
3. What is severly damaged then?
4. as far as this one, there are tapes that show it...

this will help the answers I can give. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I dont understand why people need to make this more complicated than it really is...

An airplane loaded with fuel hit the side of a building. Then exploded.

Just stop for a moment and really think hard about the kind of structural damage that would have done to the buildings framework.

I dont see why its so hard to believe that the airplanes did enough damage to the WTC buildings to drop them.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Alabama, ask yourself:

A) Sources for the molten steel in the basements of World Trade Centers 1, 2 AND 7 after the collapses.
B) The loss of angular momentum in World Trade Center 2, resulting in symmetrical destruction of the tower.
C) How the inner core gave out simultaneously with the rest of the building when it wasn't even severely damaged minus 4-5 columns per tower out of 47.
D) Where are the pictures of the buckling columns that compromised the structural integrity of the World Trade Centers.

Just to start.

A: Matter in motion equals energy. A collapsing structure of this mass would generate an enormous amount of heat. Elementery physics.
B: Cascade falures do this. It's almost impossible for a structure to fall to the side. Note when south tower went down in the video footage. The upper floor started a tilt but with the tug of gravity and the overstressing on components it had no where to go but almost straight down. Also consider the steel curtain wall construction that acted like pipe attempting to contain the pressures.
C: Remember the innercore was concrete clad columns, they too once overstessed by the shifting weight lost integrety. Once a cascade starts unstoppable.
D: I can't truly answer this not being there but more than likely mangled up with the rest of the reckage.

I would like to believe the CTs but physics and science tells me otherwise. Maybe I read a lot and work with metal bulding engineers that spoils all the fun but makes sense when all the factors are brough in. I was one of the people watching the live feed saying those two would survive. When they did collapse I was dumbfounded and searching for answers until the farensics came in. I would also like to see them finding some cordite or other incindiary in the pile just to remove the regime from the beltway but it's not going to happen.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekiel
An airplane loaded with fuel hit the side of a building. Then exploded.

Just stop for a moment and really think hard about the kind of structural damage that would have done to the buildings framework.


It's nothing to think about, because it's been defined pretty accurately in government reports.

It was not enough to cause either building to fall. If it were, obviously, the buildings would have fallen immediately.

The on-site construction manager commented once that he believed the buildings could withstand multiple impacts and stand just fine. This is in agreement with the actual events of the day, because each impact severed less than 15% of the total columns, whereas they could easily withstand having over half of them taken out, or even as much as 75% of them.


The collapses must ultimately come down to either fires, or additional sources of energy. With fires, there is no history of them collapsing skyscrapers, and there is no evidence of sufficient damage to either Tower on 9/11 (even in addition to the impacts) to justify a collapse ever initiating.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Can you answer the how of the 4 questions you posted? If you are asking them you must have a point of view.

1. What do you think the pools of metal were from?
2. How and where is momentum lost?
3. What is severly damaged then?
4. as far as this one, there are tapes that show it...

this will help the answers I can give. Thanks.


1. I have no idea.
2. The upper portion of World Trade Center 1 above the collapse zone, can be seen tilting majorly before it began its descent, my problem is how it managed to bring down the rest of the building symmetrically and simultaneously when you had greater force on one side of the building than the other.
3. I would safely assume 45+% column loss would be critical and unsafe. But it doesn't matter, 5 columns isn't going to be substantial. THat's like saying the plane impacts on the exterior columns alone could compromise the whole structure.
4.Noticeable buckling as the NIST tends to lead you to believe. Show me the tapes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join