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: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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?


Why wouldn't the marble break, and then fall from the supports?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was some limited amount of unspent fuel after the explosion of the initial collapse. We have evidence of that in survivor/eye witness accounts of "cascading burning jet fuel" falling onto the tops of elevators in the seconds/minutes after the impact. But here is where everybody gets tripped up - YOU CAN'T HAVE AN FAE WHEN YOU HAVE BURNING LIQUID JET FUEL. If you have burning liquid jet fuel, you have too rich a mixture for an FAE. So the very presence of what little jet fuel did remain being seen cascading in fire-falls in certain elevator shafts precludes there being an FAE in the elevator shafts by the unspent jet fuel.

By physics alone I get to say - you can't have it both ways.


Do you agree with what she says?




posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Do you agree with what she says?


Yes.

Do you understand what she is saying?

What has that got to do with tiles falling from supports?

What have tiles to do with a disappearing 50 ton press? Did that just break and fall from it's supports also?

You just keep contradicting yourself.



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Although I agree with Valhal in what she says, she is talking that it was either/or in a particular shaft.

There were how many shafts?

Did they all have burning jet fuel? Is it impossible that some jet fuel was burning in one or two shafts while some jet fuel wasn't burning in other shafts?

As far as the "marble" panels, are you sure they were marble and not granite? I can't find specifics but I did find this.


The entrance lobbies were all in all seven storeys high, the third floor being on the upper plaza level as a mezzanine floor (image) along the outer walls, leaving the central part open. From the all-glass walls (intermittently interrupted by supporting columns, though) of the mezzanine, a view opened to the 21,500 m² Austin J. Tobin Plaza (image), the largest public plaza in NYC, occupying the space between the buildings of the Center. A $12 million rework on the plaza in 1999 replaced the white Italian marble cladding with 40,000 blocks of brown and red granite. Also spiralling benches for the "radial" plaza were installed and the mid-plaza sculpture Globe by Fritz Koenig restored to rotate again. There was also the sculpture Ideogram by Rosati on the plaza (image).


www.greatgridlock.net...

If they were granite, we have a problem as granite has a hardness factor greater than steel.


The minerals of granite are hard; feldspar is a 6 and quartz a 7. Steel (pocketknife blade) is between 5 and 6, and a nail (soft steel) is around 5. Granite has to be cut with special diamond blades and blasted with carbide sand to carve out letters. The crystalline network of grains also make a much stronger rock than do the round grains of brownstone. And, feldspar and quartz resist weathering much better than calcite, which you can observe and measure in building and monument stones. Still, very old granite can show weathering that highlights its grains.


www.wesleyan.edu...



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Although I agree with Valhal in what she says, she is talking that it was either/or in a particular shaft.

2-There were how many shafts?

3-If they were granite, we have a problem as granite has a hardness factor greater than steel.

[


1- where does she indicate that? Looks to me like she's making a general statement.

2- dunno. But each elevator doesn't have its own shaft.

3- so why wouldn't the granite just break and fall out of its supports?



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think what you are forgetting about that "50-ton hydraulic press" is this:
Its not reference to its weight, its in reference to the amount of pressure it can exert. It is not a device that weighs 50 tons, its a device that can exert 50 tons of force, or what have you.

Would you like to see a picture?

www.northerntool.com...






Lets see, impact sends tremors down to the sub-basements including a fireball from the fuel, causing an "explosion" and as a result creates debris which covered up/buried a "50-ton press". Now after seeing the picture of what it really is, its......... NOT so surprising or alarming.
Well looky here, another mystery solved with a little something called google and keywords "50 ton press".

Oh by the way, you folks ought to look into what really weighs 50 tons and how BIG that is. An M1A1 Abrams Tank weighs about 65 tons. A baby blue whale weighs about 50 tons.

[edit on 12/27/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/27/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/27/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Dude you need to go back a page, or two, and read.

The press weighed approx 500lbs. It's called a '50 ton press'.

You're the one who is confused. No one said it weighed 50 tons. It's really ignorant to assume.

Laugh on mate....Then tell me how 500lbs of steel just disappears from a jet fuel deflagration? Are you still laughing?



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Did you look at the picture?
Did you see what size it is?
Did you not notice in the rest of the eyewitness account there was plenty of debris found after the impact and fuel explosion? Judging by the size of the object, its not that hard to imagine it gettin buried and "disappearing".
But I guess critical and logical thinking is not needed when trying to figure certain 9/11 issues?
Here is the entire account:


Mike Pecararo was an engineer working with an colleague in the lowest basement of the North Tower when the attack happened. They were told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were in began to fill with a white smoke. The two decided to ascend the stairs to a small machine-shop, but according to Mike,
"There was nothing there but rubble ... We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press? Gone!"
The two made their way to the parking garage but found that too was gone: "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything," Mike said.


911research.wtc7.net...

Ahh so nothing but rubble eh?
Gee, maybe the 500lb press got buried in it?



[edit on 12/27/2008 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
...its not that hard to imagine it gettin buried and "disappearing".
...


Gettin (sp) buried and 'disappearing' by what?

It has now been shown, and agreed to by debunkers, that there could not have been an explosion in the lobby caused by jet fuel, at most there might have been a deflagration. Have you been keeping up with this?

How would a fuel deflagration bury anything, let alone a 500lbs 50 ton press?


Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. There was nothing there but rubble, said Pecoraro. We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone! They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.


So deflagration, or explosion? Sure sounds like it was an explosion from the eye witness report right? So as to the 'fuel down elevator shafts' BS, that at most would have caused a deflagration, not an explosion. That hypotheis has been put to bed for good thanks to mainly your comrade in arms smel ...er seymour bull ...er butz...


def⋅la⋅grate
   /ˈdɛfləˌgreɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [def-luh-greyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -grat⋅ed, -grat⋅ing.
to burn, esp. suddenly and violently.
To burn or cause to burn with great heat and intense light.

deflagration
noun
combustion that propagates through a gas or along the surface of an explosive at a rapid rate driven by the transfer of heat

dictionary.reference.com...

So what caused all the rubble that buried the 50 ton hydraulic press?
You've already admitted it must have been an 'explosion' to have been able to cause that much damage noted in the above quote.

So what caused the explosion, now that your jet fuel hypothesis has been put to bed?

Yes mate, critical and logical thinking at work for you!

[edit on 12/27/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


What has that got to do with tiles falling from supports?



There's only 2 reasons why you'd be asking me this question:

1- you haven't read the thread, and are unaware why this has been introduced as evidence of whether or not there were jet fuel explosions or deflagrations, nor by whom.

or

2- you're trolling

Neither deserve an answer....



posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

How would a fuel deflagration bury anything, let alone a 500lbs 50 ton press?



A deflagration has enough power to cause that damage, cuz items like drywall, marble or granite panels, and doors have a large surface area exposed to the minimal overpressure of a deflagration. And so, they'd be pushed around pretty easily. A 300 lb (136 kg) door, 1m x 2m at 2 psi overpressure ( which seems reasonable for a deflagration), would be propelled at 64 mph, using Mackey's example from earlier in the thread. Then, when it hits something substantial, it is reasonable to think it would be destroyed. So what's the issue here?

Since you agree with Val, I'm assuming that you're convinced that bombs in the basement were used?

What was their purpose, if you do?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Obviously, if words in this thread can be taken a truthful, somebody is convinced explosive charges had been planted within the WTC towers, and our own government may have been responsible for putting them there. If that is what you think, fine.

But I do not understand the purpose of all this debate. What if explosives did bring down the towers and create all the other damage. What are you going to do about it? People have been going on about this sort of thing for years. Nobody in government has been arrested or even fired as far as I know. Unless you are going to take some definitive course of action according to what you say happened, what is the point? Bush was reelected, not arrested. The other top leaders went unscathed. They started a war over it, and are still sending more to their deaths in the oil fields. And what exactly have you done about all this except talk? Believe me, if I were as convinced as you say you are that the government masterminded that attack, and my children had been killed, I definitely would have taken some very serious action on my own by this time, conseqquences be damned. I would personally have made sure heads rolled on that point. Remember Timothy McVeigh ? What he did was horrible, but he did not just sit back passively, and let government power have all its own way without giving them equal and opposite consequences for their actions, and then some. I am not advocating doing what he did. I am saying if our government is up to what you are suggesting, words are not nearly the equal to the power of their depradations, and should be used in preparation for action. The talk about government complicity in 9-11 has been going on for seven years , but the time for talk has long since passed. Where is the courage of your convictions? If they attacked you, it is not treason to attack them back. It is right.

I, like millions of others, have seen the clips of the attacks. I cannot say I saw demolition explosives. Explosions, yes, but only those being propelled outwards by millions of tons of crashing matter forcing it that way.

And again, what is the point? So you say it was done by our own government. OK. What about it? What are you going to do about it?

The only thing I am reasonably sure of is they had knowledge of it, and failed to act on that knowledge, and I have solid reason for saying that.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jailhouserock
But I do not understand the purpose of all this debate. What if explosives did bring down the towers and create all the other damage. What are you going to do about it?


So you think we should do nothing?

Just keep our mouths shut and pretend nothing happened?

What are you doing about it? Waste your time telling other people they are wasting their time?

Governments get away with 9/11's (yes there's been many more) because of your attitude. But it's easier to just comply isn't it? The all powerful government knows best. What if you knew your doctor killed a bunch of people but couldn't prove it, would it be right to just forget about it? Let the doctor continue on, while killing and planing to kill more people?

And people think we're not conditioned...



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Another example of the pointlessness of posting to certain matters on an anonymous internet forum.

Normal, decent, reasonable society would not stand for the deliberate twisting of meaning you have already evinced here. You make a mockery of 9-11 and any truth that might be derived from a discussion on the matters surrounding it. Do not bother answering this post, because you will not be hearing from me again on any of your posts. Also, you should work on your reading comprehension. You are obviously impaired in it.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Don't worry, jailhouserock. ANOk won't answer your pretty plain question, but instead turn it around on you..

This is known as a type of projection

You ask: what are you doing about it?

he replies: it's people like you that allow this to happen ( ala Guilt Trip)

Another good example is If one were to say: Rense and Alex Jones are charlatan propagandists.

The pavlovian response you get is: "Bush is the charlatan and FOX NEWS is the propagansit!! Pull your head out of the sand Sheeple!"

See how that works... my ex-wife was good at it... this is like a forum taylor-made for the debating style of ex-wifes worldwide.

In actuallity NOTHING is really being done about it.. and the whole concept has pretty much become a joke... Good news though 2012 is comming soon, so perhaps the quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand folks will flock to that nebulous enigma for a while.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


What a load of BS lol.

I answered his question the way I did because it was a stupid question.

If you want a straight answer, what the hell has it got to do with you what I'm doing about it?

Why does someone come on a forum just to ask that question? He didn't really want an answer. He just wanted to make a snarky comment, because he has no legitimate argument, and then he has you come on here and make another worthless waste of bandwidth post supporting him.


So how about getting back on topic and explaining how those 4 ton sections landed where they did if you believe no explosives were used?

[edit on 12/29/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- where does she indicate that? Looks to me like she's making a general statement.



So the very presence of what little jet fuel did remain being seen cascading in fire-falls in certain elevator shafts precludes there being an FAE in the elevator shafts by the unspent jet fuel.


I don't particularly agree with this statement if she is talking all the shafts.

Again. Was there unspent jet fuel in each and every elevator shaft?

If not, how can you conclude that it is impossible when flight 800's fuel tanks would have contained unspent jet fuel, yet the NTSB concluded that an FAE brought it down?

Now I get to say - You can't have it both ways.


2- dunno. But each elevator doesn't have its own shaft.


How many elevator shafts were there? And did each and every single one have unspent jet fuel?


3- so why wouldn't the granite just break and fall out of its supports?


Tensile strength of granite is around 15,000 psi I believe.


BONE
Resists compression - a function of inorganic salts, trabeculae, compact bone
25,000 lbs/in2 compressive strength (compare to oak 12,000 lbs/in2)
resists tension, a function of collagen matrix
17,000 lbs/in2 tensile strength (compare to granite 15,000 lbs/in2)


academic.uofs.edu...

Steel is 36,000 psi.

The thing that's important is the "si" part of these numbers. It means "per square inch". This area is cross sectional area.

Now, let's say we have two square pieces of material to make it half the calculation (length and width being equal). And also make the pieces 1 inch^2.

Lets say you have a 1/4-inch piece of steel (usual thickness of steel support angles) vs. a 1-inch piece of granite (usual thickness of granite panels).

15,000-lb/inch^2 x 1-inch x 1-inch = 15,000 lbs. of force. That's the amount of force this piece of granite would be able to handle.

36,000-lb/inch^2 x 1-inch x 0.25-inch = 9,000 lbs. of force. That's the amount of force this piece of steel would be able to handle.

Can you see now why the granite breaking is less of a scenario than the steel angle supports? 15,000 > 9,000 after all. Or will I again be argued with?

As a disclaimer: I do not know if the support angles for the granite panels were made of a higher strength steel, which would of course change things.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
To Taxi Driver:

Yes, I agree. And it is disgraceful that people are allowed to go on and on that way. I say anyone has a right to his beliefs, but people have gone on for years yacking and yacking about how our government was a prime mover behind the attacks of September 11, and if they are so sure of it, how can it be that none have taken action in a similar way back against the government, or have I been missing something? Go anywhere in the world where rapacious, illegitimate governments murder their own citizens, and you will find men of action striking back against those governments. Why does this seem not to be the case in the United States of America?

What many CTs say may be true, and maybe I am too dense to see the truth, but I cannot see proof of what they are saying. I do not consider myself an unreasonable person, or very particularly reasonable either. If the proof were there and I could perceive it, I would have no argument in the least, but I just cannot see what they are saying. Have one man convicted of planting explosives in the WTC, and I will never doubt it again.
Cts do not seem to understand the magnitude of the conspiracy they imply by their accusations. I am not a man looking for an argument. I am a man looking for persons with reasonable approximations of the truth.

I am not writing this to ANOK who has already made his intentions clear. It is shameful that anyone should use a horrific tragedy like 9-11 for the purpose of personal vituperation and the smearing of others. It is another case of the abuse of the precious right of freedom of speech. It is disgraceful. The owners of this forum are detracting from whatever credibility this forum might have had by allowing it. And I will add this too, and it is true. One of the dedicated CTs I know in Florida is certifiably crazy; his educational level is quite low; he is coarse, vulgar, and ignorant. That really is true, and another fits a similar mold. I am not saying this to point the finger at anyone here, but my experiences with CTs have left me with the distinct opinion that many use 9-11 for some sort of psychological-emotional crutch. It is a shame.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by Jailhouserock]



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jailhouserock
Have one man convicted of planting explosives in the WTC, and I will never doubt it again.


Maybe because if you look into it any further, you have an "accident".


A photo ID pass for Sept. 5 found on one of the men charged with fraudulently obtaining a Tennessee driver's license from a Memphis woman gave him access to the six underground levels of the One World Center building.

But which tenant hired Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad, 24, to work on its sprinklers is lost, said Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spokesman Alan Hicks on Friday.

Hammad told federal authorities that he was working on the sprinklers six days before the twin towers were brought down by terrorists, court testimony revealed this week.

But Hicks said the Port Authority, which owned the building, did its own sprinkler work, and that any other work involving sprinklers would have been arranged by an individual tenant.


www.freerepublic.com...

Now, if this isn't "suspect" I don't know what is.

But, it gets even better. The Memphis woman who was to testify against Rocky suddenly had an unfortunate "accident" right before court. Kind of reminds me of Cheney's IT guru having an "accident" right before he was to testify about some things.


Small details about the five Middle Eastern men arrested Feb. 5 with Tennessee driver's license examiner Katherine Smith are slowly surfacing. Smith died Sunday in a fiery car crash, a day before she was to appear in court. It appears that Khaled Odtllah of Cordova shared the same 2840 Morning Lake Drive address at different times over the past year with Rocky Hammad, according to an online people finder database.



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff:

Have you ever read the book "High Treason" about the Kennedy assassination? It sold more than half a million copies. Look at the index. Find witnesses. Look up the pages and see what happened to them. I read this book several times. It is just too much to be happenstance. It is too much. Way too much. "Accidents" accidents? Accidentally on purpose maybe, but not accidents by our definition. I know what you mean. Aint no accidents there. Just "accidents."



posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Again. Was there unspent jet fuel in each and every elevator shaft?

2-If not, how can you conclude that it is impossible when flight 800's fuel tanks would have contained unspent jet fuel, yet the NTSB concluded that an FAE brought it down?

3-Can you see now why the granite breaking is less of a scenario than the steel angle supports? 15,000 > 9,000 after all. Or will I again be argued with?



1- ahh, she said "in certain"..ok then. Dunno about every shaft. I also don't know HOW anybody would know.

2-again, it gets back to a sealed environment of a fuel tank vs a nonsealed shaft. If it was gasoline... sure, a natural FAE is VERY likely to have happened, due to gas' volatility. But I've been around diesel all my life, and it's virtually impossible to get an explosion unless it's aerosolized in a semi "open", environment, like I'd imagine how it was in the shafts. Inside a fuel tank.... I could see it happening. I'd imagine jet fuel would be similar. Sorry, but I just don't see it happening, but you're not prevented by me from examining it further if you wish.

3- I might be wrong, but it looks like you're comparing the granite to just 1 support. There would be several, right? Perhaps 8 or even greater? Any clue what size they were - 4'x 4' x 1" maybe? How heavy is that? Would just 2 such supports hold up that weight, or would there need to be more on the botom and/or thicker steel on the bottom to hold it without bending? Is comparing tensile strength of the 2 the proper way to determine the solution to this problem?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join