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.

 

Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And in your industry, beam has a specific meaning. But in common usage, it can have many meanings.

Seymour, why am I not surprised that you completely dodged how wrong you were with the fumes vapour issue?

Why am I also not surprised that you tried to deflect how wrong you were by addressing something completely off topic, such as the definition of a beam?




posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Oh dear, you seem to not know the English language or it's definitions.


His username is "Seymour Butz." Honestly. This guy is a troll. He's only here to belittle people, because that's what gets trolls off (inferiority complex?), and even his username is indicative of that.

It's sad there aren't more educated people putting up arguments in here. But is it really worth arguing with people like this?

I'll chime in now and again but honestly I don't remember the last time I actually learned something or got any kind of reward whatsoever out of a 9/11 discussion. I think I come to this part of ATS out of habit more than anything now.

Everything is already beat to death, and the only ones still arguing are the ones saying "neener neener neener" or getting ignorantly lost in semantics.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I agree mostly. The reason I still argue is not for us, but for those who are new to the whole 9/11 thing.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Same here, that's mostly when/why I chime in. Things like the Port Authority actually investigating how "terrorists" might destroy the buildings, for example, even bringing in explosives experts and the buildings' engineers for consultation, aren't mentioned often enough and not enough people know of it.



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I agree mostly. The reason I still argue is not for us, but for those who are new to the whole 9/11 thing.



And yet, there's still no substance to your posts. I hope everyone can see that too.

Let's review:

SB: Griff, you should consider that the air velocity could produce the explosive effects - dust ejection, light material expulsion.
Griff: it's futile to do the calcs
SB:Bazant didn't think it's futile. Here's his calcs.
Griff:it's wrong, even tho I didn't actually read it.

SB:explosives being the only way to explain it is crazy, it'd be too loud
Griff: then I propose that TB's went off during the collapse, and hid the sound
SB: you still haven't answered how big you think they must be
Griff: I can't do the calcs
SB:so do a baseline and work from there
Griff: no response

Griff: I now propose a natural FAE
SB:impossible
Griff:it can happen in fuel tanks under special circumstances
SB:if it had any legs, I'd get behind you, but the fuel/air mix needs to be at a certain ratio for that to happen, and there's no way in a vented situation
Griff:no response

Now, just read my signature para for an explanation why it's gone this way.....



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
SB:if it had any legs, I'd get behind you, but the fuel/air mix needs to be at a certain ratio for that to happen, and there's no way in a vented situation
Griff:no response


Thanks for this. It is too comical.

So, tell me again Butz. What happened in the sub-basements and to the lobby? A deflagration? Please.

I'm sorry, but, anyone who has a brain can see right through your schinanigans.


Now, just read my signature para for an explanation why it's gone this way.....


Now, just ask yourself whether Damocles has more respect for you or for me. Go ahead. I dare you.

While you're at it, why don't you ask him the difference between a vapor and a fume.


Edit: BTW, isn't it you who wants to calculate air velocity in a hermetically sealed environment, but, then when it comes to "proving" me wrong, you want the building to be "ventilated"?

As pinch would say....is "duh" against the T&C's here?

[edit on 12/22/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, tell me again Butz. What happened in the sub-basements and to the lobby?

Edit: BTW, isn't it you who wants to calculate air velocity in a hermetically sealed environment, but, then when it comes to "proving" me wrong, you want the building to be "ventilated"?



1-What was it then, if not deflagrations? Remember that an FAE needs a fairly precise and even fuel distribution to get the fast burn they want. Are you saying this was the case? How could that be true if there was fuel pooled at the bottom of the shafts? This indicates not-so-good distribution, right?

2-more lies. bazant takes into account the air escape. Also, you're making the wrong comparison. You should compare conditions before collapse to fuel tanks.



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-What was it then, if not deflagrations? Remember that an FAE needs a fairly precise and even fuel distribution to get the fast burn they want. Are you saying this was the case? How could that be true if there was fuel pooled at the bottom of the shafts? This indicates not-so-good distribution, right?


Who's to say it couldn't be both?

If the jet fuel separated from the initial blast to begin with, isn't it safe to say that there were many variables involved and not just x and y? Meaning that there would be liquid and vapors (fumes) dispersed everywhere.

Is it really that impossible?


2-more lies. bazant takes into account the air escape. Also, you're making the wrong comparison. You should compare conditions before collapse to fuel tanks.


I wasn't talking about bazant. I was talking about your little crude calculations that had all of the air being pushed out the windows.

Or do you forget that? Here, I'll remind you.



Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Still nothing?

Look, take the easy way out.

The long floor spans were 60', the short 32'. Average = 46'. So the air had to travel, on average, 46' to exit the building.

46' in .2 second = 230 fps.

230 fps x 60 seconds/minute x 60 minutes/hr = 828,000 feet/hr

828,000 feet/hr/ 5280 ft/mile = 156 mph.......

Note that this excludes 100% of the air in the cores, which I don't necessarily feel should be excluded. if you use just 75' ( 3/4 ), it's 255 mph.

it looks like you should just exclude the whole silent thermobarics idea before you end up as Stundie material......



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Is it really that impossible?

2-I wasn't talking about bazant.




1- 99.99% improbable. Again, consider the situation inside a fuel tank vs in open air. I'll explain it again - there is a range of fuel/air mixture that you need in order to get any kind of burn. Too rich, nothing. Too lean, nothing. And since jet fuel is less volatile than something like gasoline, it's pretty much impossible to get an explosion unless you've got a contained environment - like inside a fuel tank - or with an engineered device - like an actual FAE.

2- And I was in the part that you quoted. He did better work. Do you have any criticism of it? Is he, as a published, teaching, professional SE so incompetent that he can't do this work?

But anyways, I'm worn out discussing this with ya.

If you want to go on with it, be my guest.



posted on Dec, 23 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
So what caused the 'explosions' in the lobby and basement seymour lies... er sry butz?

Again just asking, as you seem to realise the ridiculousness of jet fuel 'exploding', in open air...

So do the debunkers now have a new 'hypothesis' for the lobby explosions? Why haven't we heard anything about this?


“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

xenonpup.startlogic.com...

That hole getting pretty deep there mate?



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- 99.99% improbable. Again, consider the situation inside a fuel tank vs in open air. I'll explain it again - there is a range of fuel/air mixture that you need in order to get any kind of burn. Too rich, nothing. Too lean, nothing. And since jet fuel is less volatile than something like gasoline, it's pretty much impossible to get an explosion unless you've got a contained environment - like inside a fuel tank - or with an engineered device - like an actual FAE.


You don't have to explain the range. I totally understand that. But, think about the elevator shafts. They are much more like a contained environment than an open air environment IMO.

Also, even if we want to call it "deflagrations" throughout the building, going by the damage that the initial deflagration achieved in the basements and lobby, I feel that is enough to weaken a structure. So, can we agree and call them "deflagrations with force behind them"?

But, same a you, I tire of this argument also. So, until you can prove that it is impossible, it is still a probable scenario that hasn't been researched as far as I'm aware.



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


From the 9/11 commission report:


They did know that the explosion had been large enough to send down a
fireball that blew out elevators and windows in the lobby
and that conditions
were so dire that some civilians on upper floors were jumping or falling from
the building.


www.9-11commission.gov...

If the "deflagration" was that strong, I'd start to consider it being called an explosion and not a "deflagration". But, that's just my opinion.

Isn't it comical how Butz has now poo-pooed the idea that the jet fuel caused this damage? Yes, I would say that hole keeps getting bigger and bigger.

I believe if I stated that the 9/11 commission and NIST reports were 100% complete and accurate, Butz would still argue with me about something.




[edit on 12/24/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


You know what though? We shouldn't be too hard on the guy, after all if it wasn't for his, and his debunker comrades, continual comedy act there is a potential the 9/11 debate could die.

So, thanks for all the fish, oh and thanx for the help exposing the lies and holes in the 'official story' (yes jthomas!) Seymour, way to go mate!




posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Here's testimony from NYPD officer William Walsh about when he first arrived at WTC1:


[Walsh:] What else I observed in the lobby was that -- there's basically two areas of elevators. There's elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that's facing north. Then on the right-hand side there's also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That's where the service elevator was also.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren't side lobby elevators?

[Walsh:] No, no, I'd say that they went through floors 30 and below.

[B.C. Congiusta:] And they were blown off?

[Walsh:] They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway.


graphics8.nytimes.com...


More from Pecoraro:


“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything,” he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building’s lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.



Notice when WTC2 was coming down, there was still white smoke coming from underground:






Here you can see white smoke crawling up the side of WTC1 from below, from the other side of WTC2:




William Rodriguez's testimony:


Rodriguez: I worked in the building for 20 years. I was the person in charge of all the stairwells in the building. I had the only master key that opened all the doors in the building, and I went floor by floor opening the doors.

On 9/11, on 8:46, I was at the basement of the North Tower, the first tower to be impacted, the second one to fall. While I was there, a second or two before the plane hit, there was a huge explosion on the sublevel B2 to sublevel B3.


www.studyof911.com...

I know "debunkers" like to just call Rodriguez a liar, but I'm still waiting for some justification for it. The truth is they just don't like what he says.


A paper from Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross analyzing impact times from various sources and contrasting them with seismic records:


SUMMARY

On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence.


www.studyof911.com...


If you look at that article, you'll see disturbing discrepancies between FAA, NTSB, LDEO, NIST, and Kean Commission times for the exact time of the impacts.

For example, WTC2's impact was timed at 9:02:40 by the NTSB, and 9:03:14 by the FAA. That's a 34 second discrepancy. LDEO put the same event at 9:02:54 (after adjusting for the propagation delay), and NIST arrived at 9:02:59 from television broadcasts. All sources in sync with the atomic clock NIST itself maintains to within no longer than a second.

There is a whole four-second difference between LDEO's measured seismic activity, and when you actually see the plane impact on TV. And the seismic signal arrived first. This is consistent with Rodriguez's testimony, that as soon as he went to say something about the explosion he and his co-workers heard from below, they heard the plane impact.

Has anyone considered what 1000 feet of skyscraper structure will do towards damping the oscillation caused by the impact of a jetliner? Exactly how much compressional seismic energy are we expecting from vibrating columns at the foundation?

WTC1's "impact" event was a 0.9 on the Richter scale. WTC2's "impact" was a 0.7. WTC7's collapse was a 0.6. So the plane impacts caused larger seismic events than WTC7's global collapse.

Sounds wrong, doesn't it?



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


“There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

xenonpup.startlogic.com...

Th


A fifty ton press doesn't weigh fifty tons. It's a press that exerts 50 ton of pressure. Shipping weight 563 lbs.

www.northerntool.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Also, even if we want to call it "deflagrations" throughout the building, going by the damage that the initial deflagration achieved in the basements and lobby, I feel that is enough to weaken a structure. So, can we agree and call them "deflagrations with force behind them"?

But, same a you, I tire of this argument also. So, until you can prove that it is impossible, it is still a probable scenario that hasn't been researched as far as I'm aware.


1- sure, if you wanna say that breaking drywall and marble would damage the structural steel... and ignore that the elevators were responsible for some of that..... then be my guest.

2- well, go ahead and keep researching it yourself then . there's no rush



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
pinion.

Isn't it comical how Butz has now poo-pooed the idea that the jet fuel caused this damage?


more lies.

but if that's how you need to be in order to make your point, then you are indeed a troofer



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
A fifty ton press doesn't weigh fifty tons. It's a press that exerts 50 ton of pressure. Shipping weight 563 lbs.


Did I say it weighed fifty tons?

Your assumptions of my intelligence is insulting.

Also your assumption just once again shows your lack of reasoning and logic. The press in your link weighs 500lb, and is made from steel.

How did it just disappear from a deflagration? (is that how the WTC steel failed also lol)

Sorry but this is one hole you can't crawl out of....



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I figured someone (out of the two or three of them here) would bring up the weight of the press as if we had confused it. Total straw-man. HowardRoark used to do the same thing. Just goes to show how "debunkers" parrot each other, but never really think for themselves.

A steel and concrete door was destroyed, too. The deflagration at the impact levels didn't even do that kind of damage. To expect an FAE to develop from the circumstances is no different than expecting a thermite reaction to take place just from molten aluminum and rust being there, or the birthday cake forming just by throwing all the ingredients into a fire, imo.

I also very seriously doubt anything of that nature would cause a greater seismic event than the entire collapse of WTC7. Pecoraro was convinced someone had detonated another bomb on the parking level, explaining why he smelled kerosene (as he suggested himself), all of the basement destruction, and the thick smoke. If I'm not mistaken NYPD were also convinced of a similar incident at one point, and I know they were looking for a van spotted with a mural of the Twin Towers and a jetliner on the side.

How hard would it be to simultaneously explode another vehicle under the towers? And how do we know authorities would have told us about it, seeing as how it would only go to further embarrass us since the same thing already happened once in 1993?

There was so much that happened that day, that we still don't know much about, it's ridiculous.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- sure, if you wanna say that breaking drywall and marble would damage the structural steel... and ignore that the elevators were responsible for some of that..... then be my guest.


I suppose you believe that the marble panels were connected to the structural steel with wire? No, marble panels are usually connected with steel support angles.

So now, the deflagration was powerful enough to break steel support angles but not enough to hurt any other structural steel?




top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join