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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
911 Commision, FEMA, NIST,etc. We have found that most of these agencies of the government were not perfect in thier investigations. (911 Commision was FAR from perfect)

I have read literaly hundreds of posts on this site alone, other CT blog sites, and 911 Conspiracy sites. I have also read the other sites in support of the "offical story". I can not find one shred of evidence that supports the "Controlled Demolition" theory.

There is an abundance of holes in the C.D> Theory.
1- Seismic Activity/ There was ZERO evidence to support a C.D. In fact there were several "Field Seismographs" in the area of 911 and ALL of them are consistent in their findings, providing a scientific conclusion of each of the three events.

2- People often say in here "it looked like a controlled demolition". Well, controlled demolitions require to concentrate their efforts to the lowest floors of a structure. Yes you do place charges on upper floors to facilitate breakage, maximizing control as the structure collapses...EVERY implosion ever performed follows the same rule of thumb. Take out the structural supports from the bottom floors. This "Gets the structure moving". The Twin towers were clearly collapsing were the planes struck.

3- Now I wll hear the cutting charge...or pre burning. You will need access to all these areas to cause this. We all know the time and man power to do this. The "planners" of this CD would not have the exact location of the damage the plane would cause..so they would have to hit SEVERAL FLOORS.
4- Squibs..EVERY expert has come out to agree these are not FLUMES or Squibs, but air, dust and debris. Claims that the air would follow JUST THE CORE are not accurate. The air being pushed downward would force it through the path of least resistance. Please look at the squibs in all the videos, tell me if you notice ANY failure on those floors. Isnt that their purpose? To help it along? ALSO..if your looking to use a detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns, this would have been detected by any seismograph. Detailed analysis of ALL data has shown ZERO abnormal vibration events.

5- Molten Steel burning for days? I have to admit there were some great photos. Truth is, we dont know if it was steel. there have been interviews done by investigators that have said that if it were STEEL that was melting like that, it would have destroyed the hydrolic systems on their equipment as they removed the rubble.

6- What about Dr. Jones? The tests he did? He admits that his theory is still in its research phase . Lets think for a minute.Is there anyway someone could predict the destructive process that thermate takes on to destroy all the beams at the same time? Getting the same results? He did the tests from a memorial of the WTC. How were these beams cut? Maybe with torches, or other materials that may cause false readings?

Here is where I got my information:

wtc.nist.gov...


www.controlled-demolition.com...
This site shows what it took to bring down the Hudson Building.

www.jod911.com...
Great investigation piece done by PROTEC.

nuke.crono911.org...
A Canadian Report on the role the fire resistant material played in the collapse.




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
911 Commision, FEMA, NIST,etc. We have found that most of these agencies of the government were not perfect in thier investigations. (911 Commision was FAR from perfect)

I have read literaly hundreds of posts on this site alone, other CT blog sites, and 911 Conspiracy sites. I have also read the other sites in support of the "offical story". I can not find one shred of evidence that supports the "Controlled Demolition" theory.



Good for you..


Originally posted by CameronFox
There is an abundance of holes in the C.D> Theory.
1- Seismic Activity/ There was ZERO evidence to support a C.D. In fact there were several "Field Seismographs" in the area of 911 and ALL of them are consistent in their findings, providing a scientific conclusion of each of the three events.


Don't know about this so I cant comment.


Originally posted by CameronFox
2- People often say in here "it looked like a controlled demolition". Well, controlled demolitions require to concentrate their efforts to the lowest floors of a structure. Yes you do place charges on upper floors to facilitate breakage, maximizing control as the structure collapses...EVERY implosion ever performed follows the same rule of thumb. Take out the structural supports from the bottom floors. This "Gets the structure moving". The Twin towers were clearly collapsing were the planes struck.


So tell me, when was the last time ever in human history has a HIGHRISE ever fell due to some fire..

Remember boys and girls, steel weakens at 2500+f not 500F or as jet fuels are concerned 600+

Oh and out good friend the professional CD expert here that swears it was a CD.
www.studyof911.com...


Originally posted by CameronFox
3- Now I wll hear the cutting charge...or pre burning. You will need access to all these areas to cause this. We all know the time and man power to do this. The "planners" of this CD would not have the exact location of the damage the plane would cause..so they would have to hit SEVERAL FLOORS.
4- Squibs..EVERY expert has come out to agree these are not FLUMES or Squibs, but air, dust and debris. Claims that the air would follow JUST THE CORE are not accurate. The air being pushed downward would force it through the path of least resistance. Please look at the squibs in all the videos, tell me if you notice ANY failure on those floors. Isnt that their purpose? To help it along? ALSO..if your looking to use a detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns, this would have been detected by any seismograph. Detailed analysis of ALL data has shown ZERO abnormal vibration events.

5- Molten Steel burning for days? I have to admit there were some great photos. Truth is, we dont know if it was steel. there have been interviews done by investigators that have said that if it were STEEL that was melting like that, it would have destroyed the hydrolic systems on their equipment as they removed the rubble.


Ever see how fast Steel melts with thermite?
video.google.com...

video.google.com...

And Molten metal... Hmmm I bet I can find something about that.. Probably a couple of wackjob fire fighters, but none the less :
OOF::

www.studyof911.com...

www.studyof911.com...



Originally posted by CameronFox
6- What about Dr. Jones? The tests he did? He admits that his theory is still in its research phase . Lets think for a minute.Is there anyway someone could predict the destructive process that thermate takes on to destroy all the beams at the same time? Getting the same results? He did the tests from a memorial of the WTC. How were these beams cut? Maybe with torches, or other materials that may cause false readings?


Not sure about this one but none the less i have nothing to input on this except the torch part.

Anyone who takes down a building, tears a car apart, or anything of that nature will use an Oxy-Acetylene Torch. Reason for this is because it is cheap and hell and usually faster to do than other methods.

Ironically I brought this up before and nobody proved it wrong.. HMMM de DUMMM???




[edit on 11/24/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Congrats. One post with five brief talking points and suddenly everything makes sense. Thanks.





1- Seismic Activity/ There was ZERO evidence to support a C.D. In fact there were several "Field Seismographs" in the area of 911 and ALL of them are consistent in their findings, providing a scientific conclusion of each of the three events.


This is about all I had to read to realize you weren't going for facts in this post.

Of the reports of seismic readings, there are about 4 or 5 different versions that have been released by now, of the exact same events. The 9/11 Commission, LDEO, NTSB, FAA, and NIST have all provided different seismic times.

"Consistent" is not a word I would use.

More info here.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
THICH...

Let me tell you a little about protec: www.protecservices.com

They are one of the world's most knowledgable INDEPENDENT authorites on explosive demolition. They have seen and done it all. Everywhere. They were actually operating a field seismograph at construction sites in Manhattan and Brookly on 911. There were all recording ground vibrations throughout the time of the attacks and collapse of the buildings. The data that was collected and combined with C.U.L.D. Earth Observatory...paint a pretty clear picture of that day. There is a link to their PROFESSIONLA study above.

Brbray wants to compare time lines from the point of seismic activity to the report that the planes dissapear on radar. I have yet to find that information. My guess, 14 sesconds is possibly how long it took for the transponder to be destroyed? I will look into this though.

So tell me, when was the last time ever in human history has a HIGHRISE ever fell due to some fire..

Come on now."SOME FIRE????" SOME FIRE??? NO ONE has has claimed that JUST the fire took down the towers... or JUST the planes. This is the first time in a LONG time I have read this.Remember....In the history of ALL high Rise fires, none of them had ever been hit by a plane traveling at 500 MPH!, having its vertical load bearing columns that hold lateral load sheard off my a 757.
Building 7... First time in history this style building was left for up to 7 hours with its bottom floors on fire..with structural damage from a nother buildings collapse. NOt even the Madrid Tower ! Lets not forget the 20 story HOLE in the building.

Your comment about the WACK JOB firefighters upsets me. They were heros that day. For someone seeking the truth, why would you want to call the real heros of that day wack jobs. My brother and father are both fireman and my brother was actually a grief counceler for the survivors of 911.
However, their comments on what was smoldering are not accurate. There were HUNDREDS of demolition experts in the rubble cleaning up. Non of which have claimed molten STEEL.

I know what Thermate can do through steel. I have seen SEVERAL videos of it. However, you need to do some research on how MUCH thermite would be needed to do the job that you claim it did. So, please come back with the "POWER DOWN of 36 hours... that will really hold water with your explination.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
BSBRAY -

I looked at the link you attached. Thank you. Yes, if his data is correct (and i have no reason to think otherwise) Then there in deed was a 14 second difference in the time the FAA lost the flights on radar and the Seismic data. I believe this may have been the time it took for the destruction of the transponder. I dont claim to be a scientist..or work for Boeing..etc...

the person on this "paper" claimed that a plane traveling at 500 MPH slamming into a sky scraper would not offer any seismic activity. So the only seismic activity was from an alleged "BOMB" in the basement of the twin towers. The impact of the planes did NOT register any seismic activity?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Blah there's a new thread like this everyweek...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

3- Now I wll hear the cutting charge...or pre burning. You will need access to all these areas to cause this. We all know the time and man power to do this. The "planners" of this CD would not have the exact location of the damage the plane would cause..so they would have to hit SEVERAL FLOORS.


What's wrong with setting up a larger load of starting charges at pre-designated floors, and having the pilots of the planes set their flight altitude accordingly to assure they hit the general area.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
To focus on the Controlled Demolition Theory and bring it down, it's also wise to take a look at the nature of the fires, how long they typically burned for in the specified areas, at what average temperature, the heat is produced.

I think proving the fire with assistance from the impact damage, were enough to bring down the towers will disprove the CDT.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
BsBray -

I just wanted to gather the Seismic Data that occured during the day on 911..

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

This site has the actual readings during that day for the Impacts, and collapses of all buildings/ planes.

Please look at the WTC 1 & 2 Collapse Seismic Graphs, the fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement some have said is evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground.

The Theories that basement bombs were the cause of the collapse of the Towers are contradicted by Ladder Company 6 who survived the collapse of the WTC.

www.acfd.com...

Thats an interview with 7 Firefighters with Stone Philips of Dateline NBC.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

So tell me, when was the last time ever in human history has a HIGHRISE ever fell due to some fire..

Remember boys and girls, steel weakens at 2500+f not 500F or as jet fuels are concerned 600+

Ever see how fast Steel melts with thermite?

I think you might want to look at these links.
The bridge was a gasoline fire and gasoline has a lot less heat energy than Jet fuel.

Burned Bridge

Fire Could Easily Have Been Cause of WTC Collapse

As far as thermite is concerned, how do you keep it in contact with an I-beam long enough for it to melt through it? Your video was pretty, but how much structural damage was done to the car? It was the gasoline left in the fuel tank that destroyed the car. All the thermite did was to burn a small hole through it. If it was used on an I-beam it would burn a hole through the flange, leaving the web intact.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Wow the same old lame arguments keep coming up over and over again.
We've been over all this do a search, it's gets old repeating the same stuff.

The bridge has no relevance to the WTC towers, didn't we already prove this in your other thread about your bridge...


How about explaining this to me...



That's the South Tower. How did the top loose it's momentum and suddenly cause the lower undamaged structure to fall vertically onto itself ejecting outer core columns 600 ft while turning concrete, office furniture, people etc... into a fine dust that covered lower Manhattan?

I've asked you all this question many times. None of you have even tried to answer it.

What that tower did was physically impossible without help from some other force causing the columns in the lower undamaged part of the building to fail equally.

What should have happened is the top should have continued to topple off taking part of the lower structure on the pivot side with it. A chaotic, non-symmetrical collapse, just like every building in history that has been damaged or bombed (non-demo).

[edit on 24/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
yeah.... even I can see something isnt right with the WTC detruction... very odd.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I think you might want to look at these links.
The bridge was a gasoline fire and gasoline has a lot less heat energy than Jet fuel.

Burned Bridge

Fire Could Easily Have Been Cause of WTC Collapse

As far as thermite is concerned, how do you keep it in contact with an I-beam long enough for it to melt through it? Your video was pretty, but how much structural damage was done to the car? It was the gasoline left in the fuel tank that destroyed the car. All the thermite did was to burn a small hole through it. If it was used on an I-beam it would burn a hole through the flange, leaving the web intact.


And how long was that fire burning under the bridge?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Cameron,

The following video quotes both Silverstein & Guiliani saying they had foreknowledge of the collapses. And with Guiliani it is most compelling since his statements were made on 9/11 when talking to Peter Jennings live. Someone warned Guiliani and whoever that was had foreknowledge .... assuming that person wasn't psychic the only way to know any of the WTC buildings were about to collapse then Demolition must have been the root cause.

video.google.ca...

The issue of seismic activity as being a signature of CD is absolutely misleading, because the type of CD is the indicator of what seismic recordings if any are registered.

In example with thermite/thermate an 'explosion' is not always a signiature since this material only explodes when contained otherwise is just melts through what it is adjacent to. Also remember the stationary video of the collapse where the camera vibrates seconds before the collapse. Seems like possible seismic activity of some sort may be the cause.

video.google.ca...

Regarding the molten metal will melt hydraulic lines argument this is flawed since the heavy equipment's hydraulic lines are not any near the 'bucket' which picks up the debris.

There are also numerous eyewitness testimonies which describe 'explosions' in the basement and mainfloor area which most likely under CD theory were just weakening the underlying structure... until CD initiation was remotely performed from the top down which in effect relies on both the momentum of the upper structure with the themrite charges removing the understructure sequentially as it falls.

Even further possibilities are that a low yield nuke was planted in the central core of the building to protect it from damage during the plane strikes, thus this would explain the vaporization of people and concrete.

In summary the real truth will only be revealed through intense interrogation of the various suspects (Cheney, Guiliani, Silverstein etal) and a real independent investigation leaving no stone uncovered. We already know that the 'official story' can not be explained with any science know to man, therefore the only logical conclusion is that some type of CD was used to cause a global collapse of WTC 1,2 & 7 ....... the exact method of CD is only known to the perpetrators.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
BSBRAY -

I looked at the link you attached. Thank you. Yes, if his data is correct (and i have no reason to think otherwise) Then there in deed was a 14 second difference in the time the FAA lost the flights on radar and the Seismic data. I believe this may have been the time it took for the destruction of the transponder. I dont claim to be a scientist..or work for Boeing..etc...



Not quite. That difference is the difference between the seismic event, and the visible impact, not the loss from the transponders or RADAR. The article itself even shows you tables from NIST denoting the visible impact times, vs. the seismic times.

They were off 14 and 17 seconds for the North and South Towers respectively, if I remember correctly.


the person on this "paper" claimed that a plane traveling at 500 MPH slamming into a sky scraper would not offer any seismic activity. So the only seismic activity was from an alleged "BOMB" in the basement of the twin towers. The impact of the planes did NOT register any seismic activity?



Oscillation was reported in the building during the impacts, but nothing like the initial explosions in the basement levels.

Remember that this is oscillation down the columns from a lateral impact. That's lateral momentum onto the columns, or what would translate to an "S" wave traveling down the building perpendicularly to the ground, into the basements. Any seismic activity generated from the basements would have to be from the columns simply vibrating, and that wouldn't be much.

There were several seismic events after the impacts, but none of those others have been officially linked up to the impacts, for what would be obvious reasons if the impact times and first seismic events are as off as they are evidenced to have been.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves.


Only if the bombs themselves were picked up as seismic activity (the bombs transferring energy directly into the ground in a compression motion), and not simply the results of the building itself falling down, as is the case with actual demolitions.


The Theories that basement bombs were the cause of the collapse of the Towers are contradicted by Ladder Company 6 who survived the collapse of the WTC.

www.acfd.com...

Thats an interview with 7 Firefighters with Stone Philips of Dateline NBC.


People survived the 1993 bombing too. So what? There wasn't a bomb down there?

Do you realize how big the basements were? A few people surviving is not solid evidence of anything in those regards.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Boniman -

thanks for your reply. All of your theories have been debunked for several months now. Allow me to forward you to some more common debunking sites that will answer all these questions.

Thanks

www.911myths.com...
www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Boniman -

Here is a picture of an excavator..please notice the location of the hydraulics.

en.wikipedia.org...:Blmexcavsm.jpg
www.wunderkraut.com...

Remember what the temperatures would be



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

So tell me, when was the last time ever in human history has a HIGHRISE ever fell due to some fire..

Remember boys and girls, steel weakens at 2500+f not 500F or as jet fuels are concerned 600+


Thich,

Steel weakens to 50% at 1200°F

At 1800°F it is 10% its original strength

At 2500°F+ it has melted.

NIST did controlled tests using materials identical to those in the WTC's and found the fires to be burning at up to 1150°F. Enough to weaken the steel to around 52% original strength.

Jet fuel burns at 550°C, not Fahrenheit.
Couple that with the office materials and you get around 1200°F according to NIST.

Cheers mate.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
NIST did controlled tests using materials identical to those in the WTC's


Yeah, they also used huge piles of it and burned it all very quickly, releasing all the energy within a very short amount of time to heat the steel as much as possible.

I can't remember how much it was exactly, but I wanna say it was around half a million watts within a half hour within a single office space. Something like that, you wouldn't see much of at the WTC.

And even then, not even to 1200 F, and not all of that heat is going straight to steel anyway.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join