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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Because one isn't found on the net doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Well I suggest you get searching somewhere else then. As I said before, you claim this is an explination, I'm still waiting for proof from someone other than Purdue University scientists.


But if you have a shred of common sense don't you think if Purdue;'s simulation was incorrect or flawed at least you could find ONE ?


If you couldn't find one supporting your own view, what makes you think I will find one online?



OMG you don't get it.

I found one supporting my view...its Purdue's report.

Why would a report be written supporting it if there is no need for one...what will the report say "yup they're right"

Your trying to play the super pessimist and deny that the report by Purdue is correct. Purdue is correct in their claim and since THERE IS NO DEBUNKMENT of their claim BY ANYONE or ANY organization that where is your proof that they are wrong?


Once again, you don't need a supporting review unless someone has claimed that their report is flawed or incorrect.

Are you claiming it is flawed or incorrect? I bet you haven't even read it.

Thats like saying "well i wont believe this Volvo is safe even if the tests prove it is because someone other than the testers didn't test it"




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Is it possible/feasible that the buildings had been pre-rigged for demolition - I mean like at the time that they were constructed? I am thinking that might explain how the amount of explosives needed were already in place.



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

Originally posted by OpenMind88
Is it possible/feasible that the buildings had been pre-rigged for demolition - I mean like at the time that they were constructed? I am thinking that might explain how the amount of explosives needed were already in place.


Not even remotely possible. See my above posts.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

How do you explain squibs that are present 50+ Floors below the collapse initiation?




As you can see from the pictures there are a few squibs present. How is this fundamentally possible for air compression to occur 50+ floors below the collapse initiation, thats just absurd.

Also, what force is needed to throw tons of steel hundreds of metres away straight into buildings like a hot knife slicing butter?

If a pancake collapse did indeed occur the building and the rest of the steel should have went straight down not throwing steel left, right and upwards.


How do you explain squibs slow to react to the North Tower's collapse in the first place? All the videos I see of demolitions, squibs go out first before buildings starts to collapse, not the other way around. If you don't believe that air compression 50+ floors can exist below because it looks absurd, maybe because it is absurd cause we never seen a 110 story building collapse in the history of mankind so it looks weird to us.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by geemony
Sparkysixthree thx for the info I learned something i did not know. With all the other structural fuel the heat was up for quite awile i would guess.


Problem with his story is that just because temps might have been 600 degrees in the fire it doesn't mean all the steel is going to reach 600 degrees. It doesn't work that way. Massive steel columns would have to be subjected to direct heat far higher than the temp you want the steel to get too. They weren't subject to direct heat for one, for two the fires burned no where near long enough to heat up all that steel to the point of failure.
Also note the black smoke, that's a fire starved of oxygen and thus cooling, not getting hotter.

As for the fuel well that was all gone within seconds of the impact. You see that big fireball, that's the fuel burning up buddy. You think any of it would have escaped combustion?..lol


Ok buddy, i can see what you are saying but don’t try and tell me that the steel wasn’t heated up considerably, of course it was, in fact the airliner went through a good bit of it on impact, so the structure was already depleted. As for the fuel, it most certainly would have been spread out on impact and started internal fires in the bldg, which is what i meant when o said the fire had additional fuel (furniture, sheetrock, paint, carpet, etc). The fireball you are seeing is most likely one of the fuel cells and ill even give you that the fuel all went up at once, but only after it was spread into the bldg through something called movement. Fire wouldn’t stop the fuel from continuing its forward motion. The black smoke could be yes lack of oxygen and prob is some of that, but what color smoke would the burning bldg give off? The items in the bldg, the sheetrock. You telling me there was no fire in the Bldg after impact now. The plane didn’t stop at the bldg like a brick wall it went through the structure severing many of the steel beams on a corner of the bldg mind you. Very little heat would have been needed to start the ball rolling. Steel beams were severed on impact; fires heated the steel, which was caused by the plane going into and through the bldg and its fuel spreading all over the place. Steel is heated to a point that starts it buckling. Wouldn’t have to be that hot with all that weight on it to start to disintegrate the integrity.

I dont pretend to know exactly what happen and there isnt one person here that doesnt want to know what happened. But give me solid proof if you want me to believe it was anything other than the weight of the bldg that brought it down. Not one of the pictures that have been presented gives any absolute proof of explosives going off. You know im still pissed about 9-11, i want justice just as much as the rest of you, but I wont call it till its proven, and until then ill try and get as much information on both sides to make a somewhat verifiable conclusion.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I really doubt the University tested the steel.

NIST Report:

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.""

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."


If NIST did not test for the residues, why not?

There were many explosions heard by eye witness accounts which i have outlined in many posts.

The Squibs are only a tiny drop of the many other information that have been yet to be answered in detail.

I do believe the buildings were rigged months before 9/11. Everyone is forgetting that Marvin Bush sat on the board of directors of the company in charge of running the Security for the WTC Complex.

There are no coincidence, only the ILLUSION of coincidence.

BeZerK



[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk


How do you explain squibs that are present 50+ Floors below the collapse initiation?




As you can see from the pictures there are a few squibs present. How is this fundamentally possible for air compression to occur 50+ floors below the collapse initiation, thats just absurd.

Also, what force is needed to throw tons of steel hundreds of metres away straight into buildings like a hot knife slicing butter?

If a pancake collapse did indeed occur the building and the rest of the steel should have went straight down not throwing steel left, right and upwards.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]


And you know these are squibs because?

Are you aware of the support column locations in the WTC?

The support columns are located far enough from the exterior of the building that a squib whose "blast" radius and area of effect are small enough that they would never cause the external horizontal plume of dust you see coming from the building.

Further the 3 visible horizontal plumes of dust would from what 3 squibs... hardly enough to make even the slightest determining factor in a building collapse.


Again, look at the massive..no incredibly massive shelf of debris crashing down...do you know how much air all the kinetic energy is moving?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by geemony

Ok buddy, i can see what you are saying but don’t try and tell me that the steel wasn’t heated up considerably, of course it was, in fact the airliner went through a good bit of it on impact, so the structure was already depleted. As for the fuel, it most certainly would have been spread out on impact and started internal fires in the bldg, which is what i meant when o said the fire had additional fuel (furniture, sheetrock, paint, carpet, etc). The fireball you are seeing is most likely one of the fuel cells and ill even give you that the fuel all went up at once, but only after it was spread into the bldg through something called movement. Fire wouldn’t stop the fuel from continuing its forward motion. The black smoke could be yes lack of oxygen and prob is some of that, but what color smoke would the burning bldg give off? The items in the bldg, the sheetrock. You telling me there was no fire in the Bldg after impact now. The plane didn’t stop at the bldg like a brick wall it went through the structure severing many of the steel beams on a corner of the bldg mind you. Very little heat would have been needed to start the ball rolling. Steel beams were severed on impact; fires heated the steel, which was caused by the plane going into and through the bldg and its fuel spreading all over the place. Steel is heated to a point that starts it buckling. Wouldn’t have to be that hot with all that weight on it to start to disintegrate the integrity.

I dont pretend to know exactly what happen and there isnt one person here that doesnt want to know what happened. But give me solid proof if you want me to believe it was anything other than the weight of the bldg that brought it down. Not one of the pictures that have been presented gives any absolute proof of explosives going off. You know im still pissed about 9-11, i want justice just as much as the rest of you, but I wont call it till its proven, and until then ill try and get as much information on both sides to make a somewhat verifiable conclusion.


Just to take into account:

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181


So according to NIST's own report it is quite obvious from the above statements that the fires could not have weakened the steel with the temperatures NIST itself has produced.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Here is a video of a the tallest building ever to being demolished.



Lets say that the bottom part of the building was where the plane impacted at. Look at when the building starts collapsing and when you start seeing squibs.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I don't think you guys will ever be able to figure this out because you don't have any real, definitive, first hand knowledge of what happened. The only evidence I have seen is in the form of eye-witness accounts which is about the worst form of evidence you can have, and pictures showing so-called "squibs" detonating, and occasional pictures of odd items found in the debris such as as the meteorite-thing. Those squibs could actually be from a CD,or it could be air coming from out of an elevator shaft. I haven't really seen any evidence that proves or disproves any of the theories out there regarding what happened that morning.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

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


I haven't been convinced of this yet. Has he looked into other metals that it could be? There are about 15 other metals that melt at lower temps than steel. I'm just saying. Fom my (and others) observation of professor Jones is that he has a tendancy to jump to conculsions. I'm not trying to debunk him or even bad mouth him. Just my observation. And, I hope he gets the call and steps up. I can't say anything though because what have I done in comparison to him? Just ranting. Back to the subject.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
BTW its laughable how you folks think Squibs are for demolition. They are not.

Squibs are for igniting main charges much like blasting caps.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Again, look at the massive..no incredibly massive shelf of debris crashing down...do you know how much air all the kinetic energy is moving?


The presssure created would have been incredible. the concusion and energy created alone would have casued a huge pressure ball of energy moving in the air handling ducts, elevator shafts etc. Which do run the full lenth of the bldg top to bottom. I agree not one squib goes off before the bldg starts to fall I just dont see that in any of the videos or pictures. in fact if you look at the picture in the OP third post of the plane going into the bldg. How come theres a fireball close to the nose of the plane and the plane hasnt even hit the bldg yet.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

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


Nice use of words. That's exactly what it was. Just a simulation. Just saying it's only a computer animation. Not a computer model of the finite element analysis of the crashes/fire/collapse.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by BeZerk


How do you explain squibs that are present 50+ Floors below the collapse initiation?




As you can see from the pictures there are a few squibs present. How is this fundamentally possible for air compression to occur 50+ floors below the collapse initiation, thats just absurd.

Also, what force is needed to throw tons of steel hundreds of metres away straight into buildings like a hot knife slicing butter?

If a pancake collapse did indeed occur the building and the rest of the steel should have went straight down not throwing steel left, right and upwards.

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]


And you know these are squibs because?

Are you aware of the support column locations in the WTC?

The support columns are located far enough from the exterior of the building that a squib whose "blast" radius and area of effect are small enough that they would never cause the external horizontal plume of dust you see coming from the building.

Further the 3 visible horizontal plumes of dust would from what 3 squibs... hardly enough to make even the slightest determining factor in a building collapse.

Again, look at the massive..no incredibly massive shelf of debris crashing down...do you know how much air all the kinetic energy is moving?


Actually squibs are perfect examples of a CD Characteristic. What you say above just does not make sense. You still did not explain, neither did the University, on how squibs present 50-100 Floors down from the collapse initiation, could be caused because of Air Compression?

Inside the buildings there is alot of areas where Air can protrude, just does not make sense for a squib to be present 100 floors down from collapse initiation due air compression.

According to NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

So thus NIST is saying the floors pancaking together is what causes those so called squibs due to air compression, but what NIST and your University fails to explain is my question i posed above.

How about this, explain to me the characteristics of a Controlled Demolition-in genaral? (what you will hear, see, the way it comes down etc)

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Elevator shafts make perfect sense as to why the squibs are there. Theres no resistance in them and once they hit a floor with an open door a lot of it would keep going but some would go out through the door and create a plume of dust and debris.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by geemony
How come theres a fireball close to the nose of the plane and the plane hasnt even hit the bldg yet.


That fireball is a static discharge. Planes build up static when they are flying through the air.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2

Originally posted by geemony
How come theres a fireball close to the nose of the plane and the plane hasnt even hit the bldg yet.


That fireball is a static discharge. Planes build up static when they are flying through the air.


Could be metal on metal. It was very brief before it disappears. Fireballs don't disappear.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy


Could be metal on metal. It was very brief before it disappears. Fireballs don't disappear.


Its not a fireball its a electrical static discharge.

You cant touch a hovering helicopter until you discharge the static or it could kill you. When I say hovering heli. im talking about hooking up equipment and such while it is hovering over.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonemaverick
Elevator shafts make perfect sense as to why the squibs are there. Theres no resistance in them and once they hit a floor with an open door a lot of it would keep going but some would go out through the door and create a plume of dust and debris.


So air travels through the elevator shafts faster than the collapse initiation to retain enough constant energy to hit random objects (in the building) and smash windows 100 Floors below the collapse initiation


Really does not make sense especially when according to the official explanation maintains that the lobby was hit by a raging fireball that went through the elevator shafts and down to the basement and lobby to blow off marble panels and windows, why in this instance did we not see squibs present as the plane hit the towers, we should of seen several squibs present


BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join