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.

 

The Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Listen Albert Einstein could have looked at it and why would you believe him if he didnt show proof? Do you understand what 100% proof is, its not an old mans claim. You need lab work done to get the real truth and were is that?


Why are you yelling at me that the samples needed to be tested? I agree with that. Did you see the second video I uncovered where he is stating how the steel antenae didn't melt? Why would he even mention this if there wasn't molten steel?

Hell, even Leslie Robinson (the lead structural engineer) is on record stating molten steel.

Also, in the beginning it was well known that there was molten steel. Everyone was saying it. Why would Bart think that he needs to "prove" it is molten steel?

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I think the key would lie in the extent of the damage that was done to the fireproofing on the columns and members that were not initially damaged by the impact. This could account for the difference in the time the buildings remained standing. The ability for the fireproofing to adhere to the structural steel is only as good as the surface preparation. Ive see fireproofing that was not applied properly crumble in my hands. Or come of with a simple whack of a spud bar.

When you take into account the short cuts and "field modifications" the iron workers might make and then the twisting of the steel due to the heat , it is not surprising that the structure failed. What is surprising is that it stood as long as it did.



[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]

And in answer to Griff's question...No I am not an engineer, and have no desire to be one. This is due to my having to teach so many of them how to do their jobs for so many years. But thats another story. Having said that I do have a lot of respect for what they do.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
it is not surprising that the structure failed. What is surprising is that it stood as long as it did.


To me, it's not surprising that they failed, it's that they failed with no resistance the whole way to foundation. Even core columns that had seperate lateral stability than the floors.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
And in answer to Griff's question...No I am not an engineer, and have no desire to be one. This is due to my having to teach them how to do their jobs for so many years. But thats another story


I agree. I have learned more in my years in the field than I had in school. That's why you need at least 4 years experience to sit for the PE exam.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Also, in the beginning it was well known that there was molten steel. Everyone was saying it. Why would Bart think that he needs to "prove" it is molten steel?

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]


Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.
Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does. Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by geemony

Originally posted by BeZerk
How can the lobby windows, panels on the wall be ripped out when the plane hit many floors above? The plane hit about the 90th floor the lobby is on ground level



I am by no means trying to debunk this issue; I do think a lot needs to be proven though beyond a shadow of doubt. When the plane hit the bldg, it would have caused a swaying motion to the whole bldg; it could very well have blown out the lobby windows. Those buildings were very tall and the base of the bldg is solid and can not move. However if you get a swaying motion even the least bit from the building then absolutely it could cause the big windows in the lobby to blow out because the energy needs to go somewhere usually towards to base.

Take a pencil and stick it in a vice, then move the pencil back and forth , now notice where the cracks in the pencil are they are at or near the base, which is solid and can not move to distribute the energy of the pencil being moved. This may not be a perfect example but I hope you can understand what I mean by the force needing somewhere to go.

The explosions or non explosions at places on the tower below the impact. I don’t know, they could be explosions they could be force distribution. I can’t make a good decision one way or the other.

As far as heat melting the steal well jp4 and jp5 jet fuels are very volatile and can be set off by mere static electricity. My proof for this is my experience with those fuels while in the military and the many films the army showed us on how volatile the stuff is.

As far as all these eyewitnesses, seems to me a lot of people want their 15 minutes of fame.

So to prove it to me I need way more then a few pictures and someone's hearsay...... Sorry


As stated in my previous post, what your saying does not make utter sense.

Your saying that the swaying motion managed to blow out the windows of the lobby and blow off marble panels off. Take into account that the Lobby is on the ground floor.

Now as stated in a few posts back people who were trapped on the 104th floor which is much closer to the impact than the lobby, threw computer monitors into windows to gain oxygen.

Now explain to me this, the swaying motion managed to break windows in the lobby and rip off marble panels but failed to dent windows to floors much closer to the impact, how is this possible?

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I agree. I have learned more in my years in the field than I had in school. That's why you need at least 4 years experience to sit for the PE exam.


Its just like any other profession, there's good ones and bad ones. Maybe I've just been unlucky enough to work with more bad ones.

On a daily basis I have to talk to structural engineers and help them see the error of their ways. Don't get me wrong, I am no way claiming that I know the exact cause of the collapse of the buildings. I am considering the evidence like every one else.

I don't have access to examine any of the evidence or artifacts of the collapse myself, so I have to try to gather as much expert testimony as possible, weeding out the hearsay and assumptions made by other armchair engineers and armchair demolition experts.

My guess is that thirty years from now we will still be discussing this. After all, is there any consensus on how JFK was killed?

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.


Cameras were banned by the gov. agencies. Plus, I'm sure NIST has a few pictures that they're holding on to.


Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does.


What is he investigating? Molten steel? NO. He was there to pick pieces of steel to save for the museum. He was not in anyform an investigator.


Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.


And what case would that be? That there was molten steel? Everyone saw it, everyone noted it, everyone talked about it. So, why the need to "prove" it at this point when people are talking about the "molten steel" left and right? I agree though that now they need to test the meteorite because people keep saying "no molten steel", when at the time everyone was saying "molten steel"

Oh, BTW, the picture you showed was not the same meteorite in the video. You can clearly see that there is no jagged steel or paper in the video and pictures of it in that thread.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2

Originally posted by Griff

Also, in the beginning it was well known that there was molten steel. Everyone was saying it. Why would Bart think that he needs to "prove" it is molten steel?

[edit on 6/28/2007 by Griff]


Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.
Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does. Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.


So you want proof of molten metal. Ok here it is.





If this is not clear signs of molten metal then i really don't know what is.

Earth, you also failed to answer my question, now going back a few posts. I guess you jumped ship.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.
Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does. Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.


Here's another picture...



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
My guess is that thirty years from now we will still be discussing this. After all, is there any consensus on how JFK was killed?


Unfortunately, I agree. People keep saying that someone would have came out by now. Well, there have been but that's another thread. It took Deep Throat over 30 years to claim who he was. That was even 30 years after the whole debackle. He was a senior CIA agent I think (could be FBI or NSA) and he was still scared for his life after 30 years. Something to think about.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by earth2
Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.
Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does. Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.


Here's another picture...


I was going to post that picture but thought it might confuse him/her nevertheless, that is an interesting picture.

Lets compare what molten metal looks like and what that picture entails with what looks like to be molten metal dripping off the Tower.




Still dripping....



Do you see a difference?




Some people would say that, the flowing element is melted Aluminum but that is basically a lie.

Aluminum even when mixed with glass, wood, plastic would still look like this:



Professor Steven Jones has already conducted experiments in reference to that so therefore it is throughly debunked.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Here is thermal image taken by a satellite of the hot spots at ground zero.There were temps. as high as 1300 degrees repoted for a few weeks after.hmmmmmm....



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Is anyone here aware of the amount of preparatory work required to bring down a building in a controlled demolition?

Does anyone here have a clue as to the physical amount of charges that are required to create a collapse of that magnitude?

I urge you to educate yourselves on the actual amount of explosive material needed to take down a building of that size. Practically EVERY load bearing column in the building and there were over 30 would need to be rigged ON EACH FLOOR with explosives. There would be no possible way to hide such a large amount of explosives in a commercially occupied building.

The OP states several times that things have been DIS PROVEN.

I call your attention to one in particular: the OP's ascertation that the debris being forcefully expelled below the floors collapsing (And only a few horizontal plumes of debris are noticed) are from placed charges and not from the rush of air as the above floors collapse.

Please provide us with the PROOF you indicate that shows this is not the case.

I cant believe many of you find it plausible that the less than 5 horizontal debris plumes are the result of placed charges and are enough to cause a structural collapse.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
First of all, the picture of the plane hitting and the explosives going off early is fake. You can see the original video it was taken from on youtube.

youtube link

That being said, i do believe explosives were used, I'm just hoping we can make sure we use real credible evidence, not faked photos. So let's just make sure we're careful.


Originally posted by earth2
Maybe just maybe that was were the elevator door was opened, then the mega blast of energy preceding the collaspse found that opening as an exit blowing out the tower windows.

That would explain a window here and a window there being blown out like a squib. That was were the elevator doors were open.

edit: the blast of energy had to be traveling down the elevator cavity ahead of the collapse and its going to seek the least resistance which would be an open elevator door.


First of all, those squib looking explosions didn't occur on impact of the plane, they occured when the tower was collapsing, more than a half hour later. So it couldn't have been the energy from the impact.

I've heard people try to explain that the explosions were caused by the pancake collapse causing the air pressure to increase in the floors below and blowing out the weaker windows.

Unfortunately this arguement holds no water. There would be no air pressure building up, because the entire top of the tower had been destroyed, leaving a giant gaping hole where air could escape. For this air pressure explanation to be correct, the falling debris would have to fall in a completely airtight manner, which is, of course, impossible.

And so the "squib" explosions remain unexplained, and not debunked in any way.

Excellent post by the by.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Is anyone here aware of the amount of preparatory work required to bring down a building in a controlled demolition?

Does anyone here have a clue as to the physical amount of charges that are required to create a collapse of that magnitude?



Well they did pull the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building 5 days before 9/11, that doesn't seem the least bit suspicious to you?

NY Newsday article 9/12/2001
911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole


Well they did pull the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building 5 days before 9/11, that doesn't seem the least bit suspicious to you?

NY Newsday article 9/12/2001
911research.wtc7.net...


Sorry but it takes more than 5 days to prep a building of that size for demolition. lol Try at least 60 to 90 days for just the placement and not to mention of the wiring of the charges. And thats with a crew of hundreds... kinda hard not to notice.

Has anyone been to the twin towers before they collapsed? The whole bottom atrium of 15 floors has exposed support columns... it would be impossible to hide explosives in such a manner to avoid detection.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by DisabledVet]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

First of all, those squib looking explosions didn't occur on impact of the plane, they occured when the tower was collapsing, more than a half hour later. So it couldn't have been the energy from the impact.

I've heard people try to explain that the explosions were caused by the pancake collapse causing the air pressure to increase in the floors below and blowing out the weaker windows.

Unfortunately this arguement holds no water. There would be no air pressure building up, because the entire top of the tower had been destroyed, leaving a giant gaping hole where air could escape. For this air pressure explanation to be correct, the falling debris would have to fall in a completely airtight manner, which is, of course, impossible.

And so the "squib" explosions remain unexplained, and not debunked in any way.

Excellent post by the by.


You misunderstood me, I didnt say from the impact of the plane.
The tons and tons of building collapsing will cause some air pressure when it starts collapsing on it self. And the least amount of resistance will not be going through the collapsing top it will be through the elevator shafts ect that have clear open space.No resistance there and it will find all openings to escape.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.


No sir I don't. An animation alone doesn't prove anything except purdue knows how to make an animation. You need to present the scientific data explaining how this video was made. That data then needs to be verified independently for it to mean anything. If it has, could you please post that material?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join