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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
That didn't prove anything...well it did. WTC was a sloppy demo, which is what you want. If it looked perfect then obviously people would have instantly visually noticed.

In the video, the very first demo they did...reminded me of 9/11. Towers fell perfect.

edit; spelling. oops.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Tomis_Nexis]




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Mark Roberts developed a video last summer that I just saw for the first time. There is some pretty impressive videos and comparisons that show MANY reasons why the collapse of the towers were NOT that of a controlled demolition.


Considering that it is impossible that anything but Controlled Demolitions were used to bring down the WTC buildings, this is just another piece of misinformation by Mark Roberts .



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Please observe this endless loop video of the point of initiation of collapse of a WTC tower wall :



I am very interested to see some of our in-house engineers and other trained researchers give their first thoughts about what was happening INSIDE the tower when that very specific part of that FIRST, shifting downwards, outer column packet, can be seen sliding downwards as if just slipping loose from its holding points.
So, before you see the smoke explosions bursting out at different floors.

NO inward or outward BUCKLING of outer wall parts at all!
Just slip-sliding away.

Remember the Vierendeel build-up of the outer walls, with those combined triple-floor-spanning/triple-columns packets!

And remember how the many yards long, 3 feet wide, floor plates with the thin concrete on top, were situated at various places around the tower walls.
This is important, since there are several, at least 3, different ways these floor plates were connected to the outer walls :

1. the whole plate length (yards) connected to the wall.
2. the front part of the plate (3 feet) connected to the wall.
3. some sort of triangle (3 feet) connected the plate to the wall.

Look at some drawings from WTC floor plans to see what I mean.


Edit : My following next lines are in error, I found out at this page :
911research.wtc7.net...
As you can see, there are yards lengths of floor slabs to be seen in that photo at the above edited-in page. End edit.


Then you ALSO understand the wrong assumption at many websites and at these forums from some posters, that some "floors" were sagging near that spot where molten metal was seen pouring out of a CORNER of a WTC tower.

There were NO whole yards long floor plate lengths connected to a wall near any corner! Only at the walls center parts, and then only at 2 opposite walls.

So no floors could have sagged there at that specific spot.
It were aluminum racks with ceiling tiles which you saw sagging down through some windows near that corner!

And these false assumptions were all that NIST based its sagging floors theory on. And the buckling effect "it" caused in their eyes.
Edit: Thus dismiss my notes that no yards long floor plates existed near a corner.

[edit on 18/11/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
So what happened to WTC 7 which wasn't hit by a plane filled with fuel that ignited and weakened the steel frame and the steel support columns? I would like to know. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Calcas
And, he normally posts at the JREF forum under the name "Gravy." Feel free to come on over and debate anything related to 9-11 there with the best 9-11 debunkers anywhere. I dare you.

forums.randi.org...


No thanks. It's too vitriolic over there.


I went to that website and read a page of quotes, comments, and replies. There's a lot of back-patting and atta boys being passed around. Despite all the flames and criticisms to be endured at ATS, any ATS thread is sharper, more interesting, and has more diametrically opposed intelligent viewpoints than that of the posted link. Just my opinion. Thanks for the link to a site this poster never would have visited, and probably never will again.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maam
So what happened to WTC 7 which wasn't hit by a plane filled with fuel that ignited and weakened the steel frame and the steel support columns? I would like to know. Thanks.



Parts of the 110 story skyscrapers that were hit by planes filled with fuel that ignited and weakened the steel frames and support columns fell on it.

This should help explain it for you :

www.youtube.com...

More raw footage, which appears to come from a firefighting crew? :

www.youtube.com...

Clearly you can see these were no small fires, the entire building is on fire on the damaged side, and it has a huge scoop (20 stories+) taken out of it.

Huge amount of structural damage + hours of raging fire brought it down.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bofors
 


WOW what a great post... the "because I said so" reason ALWAYS works with me.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Maam
 


Maam ~

Jref is not for eveyone. They deal with facts, and critical thinking. I use their TAGS feature there to do a lot of research. They have great dialog with tons of information from all different professionals, ie: doctors, scientists, engineers,pilots, yes even NYC Tour Guides.

They do bicker when someone posts false statements. As far as the atta-boys...those come ONLY after their posts have been verified. They are very quick to correct one another if a post is inaccurate.

If you join I would not recommend starting a thread about the Silverstein quote, Holograms, "No building has ever" .. things like that. I do however urge you to look into the TAGS option and read some of the information that is there.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
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.


Being a little disingeneous here don't you think? Get me the blueprints (much needed documents for ANY engineer to agree or disagree with the official story) and I'll have a paper for you. One way or the other that is.

BTW, how can these 99.99999% engineers agree with something they've never seen before (the construction drawings)?

Or are they just agreeing with NIST because it's NIST?

Think about it. How many engineers are really looking into it like bsbray, Valhall, Pootie, Spoon1 and myself are? My guess would not be 99.99999% of the engineers out there. Probably more like .000001%. But, then again, of all the engineers I have talked with that have actually looked into things, not one agrees with the official story 100%. That right there should tell people something.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Maam
 


Maam ~

Jref is not for eveyone. They deal with facts, and critical thinking.



That's the best joke I've heard all year.

I've been on that forum maybe 5 - 6 times in the past few years, and everytime I think about signing up I finally decide that it would be pointless and a huge waste of time. And that's not because of the highly intelligent discussions happening overthere.
The whole place is, contrary to ATS, devoid of intelligence and it shows in every topic you read.
There are no mods to counter the childish remarks, yet there's gangs of idiots who are only there to repeat the same old bs. Their entire argument can be brought back to a few lines:

"that's been debunked a 1000 times"
"what are you an engineer?"
"show me a peer reviewed article and I'll believe you".
"oh so they were in on it too?"

In fact, anyone who questions the official story is labelled a "twoofer". That alone should give you an idea about how open minded that place is.

You say that the atta-boys only come when another valid point is made, well, could you point us to such an example?
All I ever see there is claims... "this is wrong" "this is debunked" "hahaha not that point again" "oh no he's repeating him haha".
NEVER refuting what is said by evidence but by hollow statements, the place is filled to the brim with such nonsense, how you cannot see that I don't understand.

Just look at the comments that were given on the debate between Richard Gage and Craig (demo expert).:



Pyroclastic flows. "The smoke enfolds itself because of all the incredible heat."

Puffs of smoke at top of damaged area of WTC 7. "Can only be squibs or explosives."

Steel broken up into shipment-sized pieces.

Symmetrical collapse at freefall speed.

Gage reminds me alot of Fetzer. Like a fire hydrant spewing wrong.


See how they sum up valid points Gage made, then conclude that they're all wrong without bringing anything to the table..

That's JREF for you.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop looking for examples. I simply cannot understand how one can read that forum and somehow believe it's based on critical thinking and facts... so convincing you is probably pointless.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

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


I e-mailed the Port Authority of NY and NJ. So far, I haven't had a response except for the person who responded thought I was an engineer trying to bid on the new buildings (even though I specifically said I wanted to study the collapses). That e-mail took about 3 weeks to come back to me, so I'm really not holding my breath for a response.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff... No, I don't think I am. But, for the sake of argument. Allow me to rephrase...

"The VAST majority of all engineers that have read the NIST report in detail have accepted the findings."




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Shroomery
 


Shroom ~

You can call them what you want. When they say "it's been debunked 1,000 time" ... it reallly has. Thats why I encourage you (and others) if interested in research to use their TAG option that i don't think you need to sign up for.

Yes, when you approach that forum and start spewing old recycled conpisracy theories, you will get some grief.

As far as Mr. Cage goes, I started a thread about that debate in here. I was VERY surprised at the lack of knowledge he had in regards to the collapses. Like I posted..there are a few members in here that wold have done a better job than him.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Shroomery
 


Shroom ~

You can call them what you want. When they say "it's been debunked 1,000 time" ... it reallly has.


No, it really hasn't.

See how easy these baseless claims are?



Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Thats why I encourage you (and others) if interested in research to use their TAG option that i don't think you need to sign up for.


I'd have to look at that.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Yes, when you approach that forum and start spewing old recycled conpisracy theories, you will get some grief.


See, you're already bringing the same closemindedness to ATS.
"old recycled conspiracy theories". Generalizations based on your assumptions. That's exactly what I was saying. That's also the reason I don't go there, people like you who probably mean well but have no clue that they really aren't being skeptical of anything. Just grasping at straws to keep up their reality. Reinforced by the pack mentality that applauds stupidity and looks down on anyone who has a critical look on the official story.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   

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


Again, laugh all you want.


Thermite charge Document Type and Number:United States Patent 20060266204

Abstract:The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.


www.freepatentsonline.com...

Again. If the very idea is preposterous, then why is there a patent for such devices?

They don't give out patents to things that don't work.

Also see my post about the thermite being used to sever the floor beams (thus inducing the columns to buckle). Or what could have caused all those "crosses" at GZ.

This picture is interesting. It says it is from 9/13. Notice all the diagonal cuts on the columns. Disclaimer: I am not saying that they were thermite cut or torch cut. Just showing the pic.

files.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

www.september11news.com...



[edit on 11/19/2007 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
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...


Not to nit-pick, but wouldn't these same problems occur for there to be jets of compressed air to happen?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Shroomery
 


By using the TAG option prior to starting a thread, you will not be met by a bunch of members saying "it's been debunked 100 times." Thats the point I'm trying to make.

I only participate in certain threads in here because of the same old recycled garbage. If something new pops up, I will read it. If I have somthing of substance to share, I wll do so.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
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.


This is a logical fallacy that I see often.

People believe that fires that got the steel to loose only half of it's strength is what caused the collapses. Why would we need to sever EVERY single column to achieve the same?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hi Griff ~

In regards to thermate (mite) whatever, from my understanding about thermate is that it burns down. Gravity wise. How would thermate be placed on verticle columns to produce the cut that would be desired?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 



I'm glad you quoted this:


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)


Bolding by me.

But, what does the owner have to say?


I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.


So, he remembers getting a call from Nigro? And when did Nigro give the order? Three hours before the building fell. But, Silverstein says they decided to "pull" and then watched the building fall as if it wasn't three hours.

Who's lying one needs to ask.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join