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: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


FINALLY, Someone actually points out what most on these boards always seem to miss. FACTS! I mean there are so many posts with mindless debate but missing basic knowledge. Thank You for pointing out the elevators design. Anyone who has researched 9/11 would know this.




posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Guessing, opinions, etc are being used as proof or "evidence" of foul play, and yet you accuse me of being arrogant for guessing in a logical manner of an event that occurred?


There is a big difference between guessing based on MSM created hollywood physics, and hypothesis based on real life physically possible scenarios.


Well then, I still find it humorous that you honestly believe that there were explosives in the basement and are suggesting that this is what caused an entire press to disappear in rubble. Because as all the physical evidence shows, those alleged "explosions" in the basement didn't do a darn thing to the overall events on 9/11 or even contribute to the collapses.


Eh? Yet you think a deflageration did? Your logic is that because you think an explosion in the basement didn't do anything it could not have been an explosion? Eh?

How do you know it didn't contribute to the collapses? Just another MSM based guess, or assumption?


When the jetfuel poured down the elevator shafts....


Wait, your whole hypothesis is base on a fallacy. First you have to prove it's even possible for jet fuel to run down elevator shafts and explode. It's already been shown that jet fuel does not explode in open air. Sorry but you need to re-think this based on what you've learned in this thread about how jet fuel reacts.


Plus I wonder why when a plane crashes we see a large fireball go up into the sky if jetfuel or its vapor is not explosive, or how FABs do what they do best.


If what you saw was an explosion then it wasn't jet fuel. If it was jet fuel what you see is a deflagration, a sudden and hot burn. Yes it looks very similar to an 'explosion', except it doesn't have a blast wave.


There were many reports of jet fuel pouring down the shafts and covering some people in it, including witnessing fireballs going down the shafts. Explosives do not cause people to catch fire, nor do they burn people up inside elevators.


Please provide these reports. People being covered in jet fuel doesn't prove it 'exploded' in the lobby.

Explosives don't cause people to catch fire?
So how do you explain the people in the basement who got burned? If it was not an explosion, then how did the press disappear, and no one said anything about it being buried in rubble except the debunkers, the witness said it disappeared.

What ever way you spin it, it was an explosion in the lobby/basement not a deflagration. So it could not have been caused by jet fuel. QED.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Anyone who has researched 9/11 would know this.



IOW, you and '86 haven't. But I already knew that.

Start here:

911stories.googlepages.com...

the #50 freight elevator shaft, which is continuous from the impact zones to the lowest basement level, B6.the large #6 and #7 elevators, which led to Windows on the World in the north tower (WTC 1) and to the observation deck in the south tower (WTC 2). This shaft is continuous from the impact zones to sublevel B4

and verify here:

911research.wtc7.net...

Where you can find out for yourself about the shafts, and that even though elevators weren't continuous, shafts sometimes were.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Yes it looks very similar to an 'explosion', except it doesn't have a blast wave.



It has a blast wave, just not as great as a high explosive blast.

wtc.nist.gov...

3.4 - an overpressure that was estimated at 2-3 psi for .5-.2 seconds.

So your argument is now debunked.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Your link leads to a file not found page.

Sorry no matter how you spin it a 50 ton press (that weighs 500lbs) is not going to just disappear from a deflagration. Not enough energy.

Also you still have the problem of your fuel down the elevator shafts and igniting, the worst case scenario that I allowed you for this argument.

Now can you prove it's possible for jet fuel, falling and splashing around on the ground, to be ignited to the point of deflagration? What ignited the fuel? How did the fuel escape the original plane impact deflgration and fires? Was the fuel running down the elevators already alight? If it was why would it ignite a second time so suddenly it caused a deflagration?

Why will you not consider any other possibility than what fits the 'official story'? The truth now seymour, we can see right through you...



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So pray tell, what possible purpose was a random explosion in the basement? To create an "oopsey we screwed up" element in the meticulousy planned attack that was suppose to be untrackable and untraceable to the US govt?

From witnessing the events on 9/11 and the collapses we see that really nothing happened to the base of the WTCs. Why? Did you notice the "spires" left over? Those were the core. The cores remained standing after the collapse of the surrounding floors and exterior columns. Now that defies a little bit of physics and logic as if those explosives were ment to knock out the core, why does the core collapse last and not first? In fact, why did it even stand for as long as it did after initial collapse? So, the "basement bomb" was for what exactly? You are suggesting this "explosion" in the basement, a powerful one that managed to bury the press and create rubble in a few sublevels was meant to help destroy the WTCs. But from the evidence afterwards, it looks like it was pointless. So what purpose did this have, in your opinion?



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


LOL again with 'what was the purpose'.

I don't know why Chapman killed John Lennon, so I guess that didn't happen either huh?



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So pray tell, what possible purpose was a random explosion in the basement?


Have you always missed everyone mentioning how "conventional" demolitions usually start from the foundation and move up the building? The purpose of placing explosives in the basement or foundation of a building, is to destroy the foundation of the building, simple enough. There is even an article on the internet somewhere where a guy from PROTEC (mistakenly) argues that the towers couldn't have been demolished because there were no explosions at the foundation before they came down.

You'll also remember the same area was bombed in 1993. It's just important to the structure.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

1-Sorry no matter how you spin it a 50 ton press (that weighs 500lbs) is not going to just disappear from a deflagration. Not enough energy.

2-Also you still have the problem of your fuel down the elevator shafts and igniting, the worst case scenario that I allowed you for this argument.



1- this is a curious argument. What do you think happened? That it vaporized? got buried by debris? was broken into small pieces? And how did you determine that there wasn't enough energy? By this standard, I can say that there was, it's proof cuz I say so, and that's that.

2- no, I can't explain how it ignited, etc. But the fact is, people in the elevators were burned, and not blown apart by a charge that according to troofers, was set off around the columns - and so, maybe 50' away - to help the collapse. Though I don't want to speak for him, Griff seems to have grasped this as logical, and has recognized that even a deflagration can have considerable energy and cause destruction. Do you? Or do you choose to revel in ignorance and swim in denial?

All this also relies on the delusional belief that this hyper-competent NWO sooper seekrit team planting these charges in the basement that achieved..... absolutely nothing, despite their hyper-competence of setting up a sooper seekrit cd that fool 99% of the population, SE's, fire investigators..... etc.



[edit on 6-1-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- no, I can't explain how it ignited, etc. But the fact is, people in the elevators were burned,

Considering that GenRadek hasn't managed to prove his claims, maybe you can answer some questions, Seymour?

Which people were burnt in the elevators? Their names will do fine, along with the elevator numbers that they were inside. To what extent were they burnt? How was it established that they were burnt by jet fuel?

Also, how much jet fuel fell down each elevator shaft? Quote sources, please.

It's difficult for me to read general statements that are so easy to make, without proof. Don't misunderstand me, there may have been some people burnt in the elevators, I don't have a problem with that when a building is on fire.

Since you have made the specific claim, then I'll be expecting you to support your claim with detailed evidence.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


One of the people burned was the operator of the main freight elevator in WTC1, Arturo Griffith. That was one of only two elevators that extended from the impact site all the way into the basements. The other was express car 6 if I'm not mistaken.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I wonder if anyone has made a scale model of the WTC buildings, and put little explosive devices in, to see what would happen to the debris? Like, reconstructed the scene of the crime, so to speak?



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


When you destroy the basement or its foundations, the building begins to move down at the base first. However if you didn't notice, the sublevel floors under the WTCs were not destroyed as there were construction workers and rescuers inside the basement mall after the collapses during the clean up. How can that be? The mall survived UNDER the WTCs although there was some debris, but NO molten metal and no large amount of debris. Oh and the cores remained standing AFTER the initial collapses. And once again the building collapsed from top to bottom and NOT bottom up. By blowing up the base 1 hour before collapse, what you have is an even MORE dangerous situation as the structure is now completely unsound and it would have collapsed immediately or almost right after the impact of the aircraft. I also wonder why wasn't there another explosion in the basement of the second tower before impact?

[edit on 1/7/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


There is plenty, and i am surprised you never bothered researching this at all. Here is the best source of the accounts from inside both WTCs on what happened.

911stories.googlepages.com...

Plus if you are all going by Rodriguez's account that there were "explosions" in the basement before the impacts, here is something else he said before as well:


“It sounded like a bomb and the lights went on and off,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “We started to walk to the exit and a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator. The hot air from the ball of fire dropped Chino to the floor and my hair got burned,” said Sanchez in the tape recording. “The room then got full of smoke and I remember saying out loud ‘I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building.’

“I said ‘Chino, let’s go we gotta get out of here.’ But Chino was wounded and told me he needed help. I remember him saying that the hot air came with such force that it broke his leg. We finally went out through another exit and his leg and knee were both broken.”

Now this was from 2005.

Lets see what he said in 2006 from the American Scholars 9/11 confrence:


"We were cleaning the basement from the tower of the World Trade Center. We heard something like a bomb, and the light turned off. At the exit door there was this ball of fire that came down and knocked us on the floor. We were hit by hot air and the room was full of smoke. At that moment I believed it was a bomb. I said, “Chino, let’s get out of here.” I can’t get out because – his leg was wounded. I know there was an explosion, there was hot air, my hair got burned."



Ahh so from R's own mouth a ball of fire came down by the door. Now I don't recall having balls of fire traveling down in front of you when something explodes below you.

As for people being burned up inside elevators look below at the sources and accounts I have posted. You really ought to know the difference between getting blown apart by explosives and burned to a crisp by a fireball.

And now for your reading enjoyment accounts from inside both WTCs at the moment of impact on a floor by floor account:

911stories.googlepages.com...

911stories.googlepages.com...

911stories.googlepages.com...

911stories.googlepages.com...

911stories.googlepages.com...

Eyewitness accounts with sources to microstudy and nitpick to your hearts content.

No offense tezz, but I seriously wonder if you have ever bothered doing some serious research into 9/11, if you cannot even find such basic items as eyewitness accounts from inside the WTCs, or have ever stumbled across them in all these years. You can only go so much on what they show you on those 9/11 conspiracy sites, but much of that is edited and changed and censored to purvey this myth, and to keep you in the dark on the events of what actually happened. Its time to move onto real sources untainted by the CTists. I hope the accounts and sites I posted above will show you how and hopefully satisfy your questions on fireballs in elevators and jet fuel pouring down them.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh and the cores remained standing AFTER the initial collapses.


Let me ask:

What happens when you stand a pencil on end and then pour sand around the base while keeping the pencil upright and then let go? Does the sand stabilize the pencil and give it a chance to remain standing? Or does the pencil still tip over?

Is it impossible that this same phenomenon may have happened with the core columns/structure?



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Well, interesting way of putting it, but let me remind you that the core was made up of sections of steel columns joined together (bolted) at the ends. Now if the core beams were solid, one piece structures 110 stories tall (I understand even longer because of the amount below in the bedrock), your analogy would be correct. But they were not. If you were to say 10 pencils taped together tip to eraser, that would be a more realistic analogy.

The base of the towers and sublevels were not that well packed as the sand you referenced. Also if the base columns were severed by some method, they would have collapsed on the simple account of the debris falling down all around it and the movement of the large columns and floors that did fall down (pancaked), and could have knocked them over right away, not let them stand for nearly 15-18 seconds after initial collapse. Using your pencil analogy and the sand base, now imagine blowing out the base of the pencil nder the sand and then pouring sand and stones all on top of it and around it for 10-15 seconds. It is a little more complicated. But i do see what you are getting at.

[edit on 1/7/2009 by GenRadek]

[edit on 1/7/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff
 


Well, interesting way of putting it, but let me remind you that the core was made up of sections of steel columns joined together (bolted) at the ends. Now if the core beams were solid, one piece structures 110 stories tall (I understand even longer because of the amount below in the bedrock), your analogy would be correct. But they were not. If you were to say 10 pencils taped together tip to eraser, that would be a more realistic analogy.


But the columns that remained standing were not 110 stories. So, I don't see your point?

Also, since the core section is a rectangular braced structure, it may have had this type of reaction too.

www.youtube.com...

Don't forget that this building was blown with explosives but still stood. Because they didn't take into account the basement.

All I'm trying to say is that we can't use the core still standing as proof that there were not explosives involved in the actual collapses.

But, related to our other discussion, I think we can all agree that whatever we want to call them, deflagrations or explosions, the burning jet fuel and vapors did have force behind them. Correct?

[edit on 1/7/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I hope the accounts and sites I posted above will show you how and hopefully satisfy your questions on fireballs in elevators and jet fuel pouring down them.

Well, no.

I asked how much jet fuel poured down exactly which elevators. Nothing in those links shows me that, GenRadek, nothing.

Was it one gallon of jet fuel? One hundred gallons of jet fuel? More? Was it a raging torrent of jet fuel flowing down all of the elevator shafts or only some?

Linking to pages and pages of people describing burns and explosions does not quantify how much alleged jet fuel poured down any elevator shaft - like I asked. There were explosions in the towers, so I know that people were burned.

Remember these questions:

Originally posted by tezzajw
How much jet fuel poured down which elevator shafts, GenRadek? You've made the claim that it happened, so you must have some data that supports it?
Do any of these reports state exactly how much jet fuel poured down exactly which elevator shafts?

You've dodged the only questions that I asked you to answer, GenRadek. Why? Can't you answer them? If you don't know, then you're better off admitting that you don't know how much alleged jet fuel allegedly flowed down any elevators.

It's important to quantify how much alleged jet fuel flowed down any elevator shafts, as it can then be determined if there was enough alleged jet fuel to account for some or all of the interior explosions inside the towers.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I do not know how much jet fuel poured down. What, would you like an answer in gallons, liters, grams, milliliters, or how about metric tons? Seriously though, why are you nitpicking at this detail that is almost impossible to answer?
I have a better suggestion for you. How about you go and drop a vase from a 10 story window. Now I want you to tell me why every pieces of the vase ended up where they did after hitting the ground and what where the mechanisms, trajectories, and speeds for every single shard and speck of dust of the vase to end up where they did, and why they all did? Sounds impossible right? Well that is what you are asking me in order to ignore the relevant data and facts on the jet fuel. Ask an impossible question, and then act belligerent when i cannot answer it and use that as proof my facts are invalid and therefore unacceptable to you or to anyone. I know this little game well.

However, if you bothered reading ANY of the sites or eyewitness accounts I provided you would begin to get an idea of how much must have poured down them on the account of the people that were there. Once again, it is all in there in the accounts. Unless you believe that they are all mistaken, lying, planted, aliens, FBI/CIA/ABC coerced into saying that under threat of torture/death/financial ruin/etc. I can't force you to read them all and understand what is said. Nor can I force you to comprehend it all or use common sense for you. But if you are going to play these little games to throw me off, then i can see you are truly NOT interested in the truth. Only the "truth".

And tezz, once again, there is a BIG difference between blast damage done to a human and a human being engulfed in a fireball from a fuel source. Explosives don't melt and burn hundreds of people when they go off. They blow them apart and splatter limbs and guts everywhere. And if you would bother reading the accounts from the people who were there that saw people coming out of elevators burnt up and melted, and reeking of jet fuel, you would see that explosives do not do that. A fuel tank exploding will, but not a stick of dynamite or C-4 or plastic explosives or even shaped charges.

[edit on 1/7/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Well that was the original height. But nonetheless, the remaining columns were about 50-60 floors high.

Plus one critical factor you forget of the video taped failed demo of the building: how was it built? was it a conventional steel web design with concrete supports? A steel web design will behave differently than a different building with transfer trusses over a substation. Plus, what went wrong in that video?

Blowing the core columns in the WTCs would have meant the core would be the first to collapse and begin the implosion. It would have pulled the building in, not have it all get peeled back like a banana and telescope in. And it would not have stood first. You blow the main supports, its gonna come down real quick. Also notice, there was no evidence anywhere in the basement of any core columns blown up. I thought it was alleged thermite cut the core columns. Now its explosives? Or special explosive magic thermite that cuts columns on angles but has them stand together in two pieces for an hour or two, and magically holds up to the pressures and chaos of collapse of 110 stories overhead for nearly 30 seconds before allowing them to collapse? you see why I find this a little funny when allowing the CT version of events play out? From what i can make of the claims by the CTs with explosives is this:
Explosives that can launch 4 ton steel lattices (Selectively launch them mind you);
Silent but extremely powerful explosives;
Explosives that can melt and burn people to a crisp but leave them intact, but powerful enough to dislodge and destroy thick steel columns;
Thermite that can magically cut thick steel on an angle with no problem;
Tons of powerful explosives that were planted on every single floor and not noticed by a single soul in the days and weeks and months before 9/11;
Explosives that can be pre-planted months or years in advance and not succumb to age or the natural decay of explosives and have wiring that does not break down or loose effectiveness after a long period of time;
Powerful explosives that can create huge fireballs without any sort of liquid fuel to propagate it, BUT at the same time produce no shockwave that can tear a human apart, but incinerate them in enclosed elevators.

And this is just scratching the surface. This is what I gather when taking all of the claims being put forth by the CT movement with the "explosives" in the towers idea. Basically explosives that behave like magic.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join