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.

 

NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


ipsedixit.... You and many others say this over and over. Where is your proof? Where is your paper that shows your findings. Fact is AGAIN... 99.9999% of ALL engineers WORLD WIDE agree with the Official story, and to date, not one against the official story have proven otherwise.


Captain O., you are among the few "officialmythologists" that I respect, because you don't strike me as a "jailhouse lawyer type". Although I'm beginning to wonder about you since I don't see your avatar anymore. Are you the real CaptainObvious?

Anyway, kidding aside. This is a philosophical point. A paper is not a proof except in logic. In other disciplines a paper is an explanation. No-one can reason from truly fundamental axioms to a complete explanation of the WTC collapse. Explaining the WTC collapse is an empirical matter requiring data which we don't have. Any conclusions about the WTC that we might come to are only possibilities based on assumptions.

The fact remains that in pure statistical terms collapses like the ones we saw at the WTC are unprecedented in the history of the construction industry. That means that the odds against them happening that way are extremely high.

For it to happen twice on the same day and for this to be swallowed as presented by the Bush administration is nothing more than a tribute to the greatest thinker in the history of American marketing, P.T. Barnum.




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit


Look, I'll be perfectly frank with you.

i like frank. i can deal with frank. franks a good guy...jk. no, honestly i do appreciate your candor. most of the people that claim this or that cant support their stance with math or in most cases even complete sentences so for you to be frank about it is a nice change. sorry if the tone of my previous post was a little abrasive, just that since im not a CD believer i took exception to the common sense comment.


I can't supply the math for this because I'm not a person with either the training or the data to do that.

Keep in mind that any, and I mean any, mathematical model no matter what theory it supports is going to be hypothetical. There will be assumptions involved.

and as such would never be accepted 100% by either side of the debate. but, youre totally correct about that.



Continuing in the perfectly frank mode, I sincerely doubt that showing the math or explaining the laws of physics or even a televised confession by that murderous imbecile in the White House would have the slightest effect. There are people who will pay for Jesus's image on a hotcake.

and there are many who think that the tapes of bin ladin were faked. despite the fact that since that tapes been out, he's never refuted it. cuz if he did, al jezhera would have been all over that one.



The business about the "unavailable" blueprints interests me though. Are they unavailable in the same way that the Pentagon security videos are unavailable?

exactly like that. its both odd and annoying at the same time. honest engineering types like griff who just want to know the TRUTH and not some bs recycled spew from a conglomorate of websites cant do their own analysis

but instead our choices are we either accept what the govt tells us "cuz they say so" or we listen to a bunch of guys who it sure looks like they tend to skew their experiments to support their theories not the other way around. and the camps on both sides are ready to battle.

then theres guys like me. i dont buy the govts version 100% by any means...but conversly ive yet to find an alternative theory that makes ANY sense in the real world with what i know of explosives. then i come here and read all these cd theories, try to explain why they dont make much sense, and im assaulted with comments like "you just a govt agent" or "ok then why DID the towers fall?" (like id know, never said i did, just have a better than avg basis for why they didnt fall) or, and i mean no offense to you in particular on this one, but that i have "no common sense"

so, i do apologize if i seemed abrasive, but thats why...



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
The idea of thermite being used is preposterous.......

No it's not, if it's used in conjunction with a cutter charge underneath.
I'll explain.

A Thermite bomb hidden inside the core column could be un-mixed
in 2 separate containers and lowered into position from an upper
empty floor by rope and tied off and strategically placed due to height.
A small charge on that container breaks the containers
and mixes the solutions when the planes hit the building. The impact
of the planes (sound) drowns out the small explosions to set off
that chain reaction. Now there is Thermite dripping down INSIDE
the column. A well placed cutter charge several floors underneath
the Thermite bomb would sever the column and spew the Thermite
hot solution onto a specific floor (like the one targeted by the plane).
With the column severed, the fire drip now runs outside the column
along the floor line which would resemble a fuel fire
and runs toward the outside of the building which explains the Thermite
drip photos and video of it spewing out the side of the building before
it collapses.




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I don't think we are ever going to have a definitive resolution of the mechanics of the WTC collapse. Many believe that the investigators were not allowed to do a proper job of investigation and that too much of the rubble was cleared before it could be examined. People are going to be tossing this incident around for a long time. I'm fine with that.

My posts in this thread were a little more combative than normal for me because I was incensed by the patronizing and I believe overly tendentious tone of the OP's video. I realize of course that many so-called "truther" videos have exactly the same patronizing and biased tone.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Back to impeaching the source of this thread...

If indeed Mr. Roberts is New York's "Finest Tour Guide," he's taking people on a Magical Mystery Tour.

After scanning Google for NY tour operators and related businesses, the only Mark Roberts I turned up who might be the same person is listed at www.infohub.com..., in association with The Chicago to New York Concierge, Inc.(ph#:773-665-9897).

I have sent inquires to several tour operators asking about Mr. Roberts and his claim of superiority.

Also, if Mr. Roberts is hiring himself out as an official NY "tour guide" he is doing so illegally. Of the 266 licensed guides listed at www.newyorkcitytourguides.com..., Mr. Roberts is not among them.

Of course, as often is the case, the truth can sometimes be found among the lies. I have to admit Mr. Roberts did focus my gaze at the tilting inward of the outer walls as one of the towers began to fall. Perhaps I'm way off here, yet I thought to myself, "an explosion to create an implosion." Create a vacuum and everything gets sucked into it.


He says an explosion occurred seven seconds before the first plane hit the towers, and came from below, not above, said William Rodriguez.
wweek.com...


By the way, there is a great deal more information on Mr. Rodriguez. He has a colorful past and he seems to me to have a certain simple charm and sincerity about him. I respect the fact he turned away from the Republicans and appears determined to make his voice on this matter heard - even though he "hates" doing it and does not appear to be making much, if any, money related to his current occupation.

I wonder if Mr. Roberts could make the same claim from his hotel suite in Florida as he dines with The Amazing Randi.

It would certainly be a hoot if some how the ATS powers that be could get Mr. Rodriguez over here. He might even be able to recreate those blueprints from memory; a memory built from nearly 2 decades at the WTC. Nobody knows a building like the janitor.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
Of course, as often is the case, the truth can sometimes be found among the lies. I have to admit Mr. Roberts did focus my gaze at the tilting inward of the outer walls as one of the towers began to fall. Perhaps I'm way off here, yet I thought to myself, "an explosion to create an implosion." Create a vacuum and everything gets sucked into it.


an interesting theory, but much like the "redneck engineering thermite" above, its fraught with inherent problems.

the type of explosion you'd need is, most simply described as a powder in air, type of explosion, or better yet the fuel/air/magnesium concoction that the daisey cutter uses. also to suck in part of a heavy steel structure building like the WTC youd have to create one HELL of a negative pressure thats beyond my knowledge to compute. so, to create said negative pressure you'd need a pretty hefty explosion just before collapse to create the vacuum. the next neat trick would be, how does one create a huge negative pressure in a building thats got a large hole in it? even if it didnt have a hole in it, the windows would all suck in long before the walls sucked in...

so, did anyone observe a large explosion in the impact zone just before collapse?



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Dear Damocles

Here's what I found:


Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

...

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously at 5:20 on September 11th.
www.911timeline.net...


This information is contained in item # 109 on the time line.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeta115
 


That's certainly an interesting theory. But I think it won't stand up to a little scrutiny.....

I think that the columns were boxed, so I don't know how one would gain access to the inside, short of torching holes in them to do like you're saying.

Thermite needs to "blow" into the steel in order to cut it, when you're attempting to cut horizontally. There are canisters that do this, explained in my post. They are basically a tube that makes the reaction of the thermite/ate "blow" out the only open end. Dripping thermate would just fall all the way to the bottom and have no effect on the core columns.

I think your timeline proposes that the use of cutter charges also. What would be the point of this? Why not just use the cutter charges if you're going that route? Why complicate matters?

And I believe your time line proposes that you cut all the columns at the time of impact? How could the Towers stand for 50/100 minutes under such a scenario? Or if you cut them later, again, where are the sounds of detonation, right at the moment of collapse begins? And what happened to the thermite during the 50/100 minutes? Why would it just "hang around" there, waiting for the cutter charges to blow? They would have to be very large explosions, and would be plainly heard on any of the videos available, agree? Actually, it would be interesting to get a report from that Danish demo guy on how much explosives would be needed to cut all the columns on a single floor so that we would have something to gauge it.

Lastly, the "metal" dripping out of the 81st floor of 2 has never been positively identified. BTW, this floor also had an uninterruptable power supply (UPS), right in that corner, for Fuji Bank. It also was an impact floor. UPS means batteries. Batteries means lead. Lead melts at a low temp. Also, it's unbelieveable to expect only one single element to be dripping out. One would expect it to be a combination of all the things found in an office. And since it was an impact floor, I would expect it to be a combo of aluminum, lead, and mixed inorganics.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthwillneverberevealed
all of the stuff in this video has been debunked. he doesnt have any evidance to back of anything he says just some videos we have all seen before. he looks like a huge idiot also because there is evidance of thermite used. its called molten metal.


Some other questions to ponder,

1. Why was the wreckage of the WTC quickly sent to China as scrap? Hide evidence?
2. Why were all video camera footage taken near the Pentagon confiscated and never released? Hide evidence?
3. Both towers fell in free fall. Never happened before.
4. WTC 7 also fell in free fall but wasn't hit by a plane. Also, it wasn't discussed in the 9/11 commission report as far as i know.
5. Why didn't our fighter jets not intercept these planes in time?

Until these questions and others are answered by our beloved govmint, we aren't going to believe the "official" conspiracy theory.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Soloist
It is clear as a bell, you cannot have one without the other, a plane hit which caused the fires, period.


The planes may have caused the fire, but there is too much evidence that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.


They MAY have started the fires??? Once again you dodged my point as you have continued to do in all your trolling posts.




Please do a little research before posting.


Why you are allowed to continue your trolling on here I do not understand, but everytime you make comments like this from now on , I will tell you where you can stick them.

Fair enough?



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 


Dear Haroki,

I'm also concerned about the apparent time lag between Mr. Rodriguez's "7 seconds before impact' and the time that tower came down. Could it be that during that interval the thermite/mate was "cutting" the steel, as you documented in your earlier post?

Of course that still leaves those seismic events unexplained. Unless there were 2 explosive events, one just before impact and one just before collapse?



[edit on 17-11-2007 by GreenFloyd]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RedPillTaker
 


1- Untrue. The steel wasn’t entirely cleared from the site until May 2002. Further, the recycling did not happen “before investigators even had the chance to look at them”. Here’s Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

www.house.gov...

2- Foot patrols are used rather than cameras. As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" one answer is that the Pentagon primarily uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. (Since 9/11 more cameras may have been installed. I don’t have information on that.) Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. /gxvvd An excerpt: "Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

3- Free fall debunked. And show me another building that was struck by planes and burned with the same construction design, etc. And then start asking Q's.



4- Here's the best summary I've seen. Remember, NIST hasn't finished/released its' report on & yet.

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

911guide.googlepages.com...

5- because We weren't prepared for planes to be used as missles. Which flight are you interested in seeing debunke? To do them all would take too long.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


So Mr. Floyd,

What are your claims here? That Mark Roberts is NOT a tour guide? A government shill perhaps? A member of the NWO ? Well... great job investigating... your on to him .... he is also the KING of Blueberry Tart making.

Mark is a member here, perhaps instead of doing your "googling" you could have sent him a U2U and saved some time.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


So Mr. Floyd,


Actually I prefer "Green."



Mark is a member here, perhaps instead of doing your "googling" you could have sent him a U2U and saved some time.


That's a good suggestion. Done.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


If thermite WAS cutting, it doesn't explode. So how could he hear explosions like that?

Anyways, he's changed his story about as much as a stripper changes her g-string. He was consistent - available in 2 CNN interviews - as hearing rumbles until he got in on the RICO lawsuit.

But since he heard 2 events, it's more likely that he heard 1- the plane hit, 2- the fuel explosion in the basement (B4) and in the lobby.

Seismic events are inconclusive, at best. You've seen a compressed view of the collapse event, which makes it appear that the largest activity occurred in the beginning. It didn't.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
...and there has never been a published proof of controlled demolition paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal



whenever someone says "peer reviewed scientific journal", i WEEP for humanity.
learn it up yerselfs, peeple.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Dear Haroki,

Thank you for your considered reply. I appreciate your contributions to this discussion.


Originally posted by Haroki
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


If thermite WAS cutting, it doesn't explode. So how could he hear explosions like that?


Working on the unproven theory that something more than just the planes and fires brought down the towers and WTC7.

Then, considering from what I've seen posted about the heavily fortified foundations of the towers it might require one blast to gain access to the steel supports which I believe were encased in several feet of solid concrete, then a burn period, and then a final subterranean blast in the center of the structure.

This is total speculation on my part, (and I have way more questions than answers) and I have no direct experience with any of this stuff.

Is it possible this 1st blast, might have provided a way to inject the thermite? Also, I wonder if that interval from Rodriquez's "7 seconds before impact" - assuming a standard rate of burn and all the other myriad variables - to the recorded collapse time, would work out mathematically? Is there any evidence the bedrock foundation itself might have sustained some collapse? In effect, if it did, sucking the tower down into it?

Does that make any sense?


Anyways, he's changed his story about as much as a stripper changes her g-string. He was consistent - available in 2 CNN interviews - as hearing rumbles until he got in on the RICO lawsuit.


I didn't run across anything on it, but I haven't looked at everything on Mr. Rodriquez, yet. Could you please elaborate on the RICO thing.


But since he heard 2 events, it's more likely that he heard 1- the plane hit, 2- the fuel explosion in the basement (B4) and in the lobby.

Seismic events are inconclusive, at best. You've seen a compressed view of the collapse event, which makes it appear that the largest activity occurred in the beginning. It didn't.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...


I was not aware of any explosions in the basement or the lobby. My speculation has to do with levels below all that. I did see a video of the lobby with blown out windows but I don't think that was attributed to an explosion in the lobby itself. I think it's been suggested that the damage recorded in the lobby just prior to collapse was caused by a shock wave of some sort? Perhaps from below, or perhaps from above...

As a simple layman I found your explanation about seismic events rather confusing. I thought the swing of the needle corresponds directly in real time to earth movement? Any way it's certainly something I'm not qualified to address. All I know is what I've read.


109) 9:59:04 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center suddenly collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris quickly fills lower Manhattan. It is later explained (disinformation) that the collapse was not directly caused by the impact, but the intense heat caused by the fire fueled by the jet's fuel weakening the steel support beams of the concrete floors. The WTC towers were built to withstand a 707 being flown into them. A 767 carries almost the same amount of fuel as a 707.
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


The idea that the planes themselves might have been lined with rocket fuel is elaborated in interviews on this website:

www.hawkscafe.com...

This guy has some unusual ideas about 911 and who carried it out, including the use of rocket fuel to turn the planes into flying metal cutters and to burn out the interior of the WTC tower core columns.

If you listen to the interview with George Noory archived on this sight you will get the gist of what he is talking about. His notions are pretty far out technically and in terms of the motivations for the attacks. David Hawkins is the guy's name. Odd stuff but interesting ideas.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


thanks for the link, I would like to know from some of the people here who know more about explosives then I how possible would it be?
I mean after all some people here think it was the damage of the Planes plus the fire, so I am wondering would they then think it possible that Planes carrying something more explosive could cause the collapse?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join