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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 



Ryan Mackey calculated that it would take 700 kg equivalent TNT to blast a column 500 feet away.

I have shown that the 700kg of equivalent TNT is equal to 127 kg of thermobaric.

We are talking about one column. Not an entire building.

We are also talking about the noise factor of said thermobarics.

And as you claim, the collapse was "loud as hell". Which I agree with and why I keep saying that the noise of a thermobaric would be hidden within the collapse.




posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Ryan Mackey calculated that it would take 700 kg equivalent TNT to blast a column 500 feet away.



No, he didn't.

He estimated the explosives needed to "blow" a 600 kg tube 500'. You need to redo your "math". Go ahead and use the lightest materials for this column tree - 1/4" steel in the tubes and 1/4" for the spandrels.

Plus, I thought that the fuel thing wasn't an explosion, but a deflagration, which would have much less power/detonation velocity to it. Weren't you and/or bsbray argueing this at some point in the past? Have you changed your mind about that now, and now made your past argument wrong?

And, you're claiming that 100% of the fuel would have been used in this deflagration. Do you have any reason to believe this?

Another thing, it is your duty to demonstrate that your working hypothesis has any legs to it.

NIST was never tasked to estimate the amount of explosives needed to "blow" an exterior column 500', so your statement is a lie.

So you have failed yet again.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Hey Griff: This is what you are talking about, right?
From Wikipedia on the Thermobaric bomb:
("Some defense analysts question both the yield of the bomb and whether it could be deployed by a Tupolev bomber. A report by Wired says photos and the video of the event suggest that it is designed to be deployed out the back of a slow moving cargo plane, and they note that the bomb-test video released by the Russians never shows both the bomb and the Tupolev bomber in the same camera shot. There are also questions on what type of explosives it actually used. They quoted Tom Burky, a senior research scientist at Battelle, saying "It's not even clear what kind of weapon the Russians tested." He questions if it was what some experts call a "fuel-air explosive," or if it was a "thermobaric" weapon. "Fuel-air and thermobaric bombs differ in usefulness".)

As you can read, this is a bomb to be deployed by an airplane, a bomber!
And just for argument´s sake, let´s say you have developed "portable" thermobaric weapons.
1. How could you get them to the places where they need to be?
2. How many would be needed?

And about the LOUD NOISE of the collapse, explosives would have been heard through that anyway.


[edit on 18-12-2008 by rush969]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969

Seymoure. I must say I admire your patience with this fellows. It´s really amazing isn´t it? The people who offered the "EVIDENCE" haven´t shown ANY AT ALL. What they have done is speculate and made assumptions. They base their theories on optical perceptions from a few internet videos, and gossip, and misleading photos. They don´t offer any proof or calculations that are asked from them.
The one that has to proove things is YOU, the one who doesn´t accept what they are saying.
I for one still have to see the "EVIDENCE" that was offered here. It says EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES... If they are talking about explosives, why is it that they don´t say HOW MUCH WAS USED? Just an aproximate figure should be acceptable at least to discuss it, BUT NO, other people have to PROOVE the conspiracy wrong!!
I find it very frustrating to waste time reading these guys going in circles because they can´t proove anything.
I guess they are in denial really, and I must say I feel sad for them.



All this is right on point.

But it is a common practice for those that back an inside job.

For them innuendo is all the proof they need. And when serious questions are asked, it's not their responsibility to answer them with real answers that address the point, but rather MINE to produce results that they will reject out of hand through personal incredulity, rather than any kind of real refutation.

SSDD.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
As you can read, this is a bomb to be deployed by an airplane, a bomber!


You're a little behind the times (at least as far as declassified weapons go). They're also used to demolish buildings with the SMAW-NE, where SMAW stands for "shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon," and "NE" stands for "novel explosive," which happens to be thermobaric.

They had them on the show "Future Weapons" on Discovery. They launch the thermobaric into a building, and it goes off in stages to produce a sustained pressure wave that lasts long enough to blow out the walls of a building. It actually has a sensor on it that lets it calculate when it's in the center of a building, for example, and when to initiate its stages before it actually impacts a wall. Granted they weren't firing at steel buildings, but it goes to show that people already have put thought into taking buildings down with this kind of technology and even implemented weapons in our military.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

posted by Griff
So, 7,800 kg of thermobaric is equivalent to 44,000 kg of TNT or 18%.

Mackey calculated that it would take the equivalent of 700 kg of TNT.

Going by this 0.18 x 700 = 124 kg of thermobaric.

124 kg is equal to 273 lbs.

As a comparison:

There was about 10,000 gallons of fuel in the jets when they collided with the towers. Jet-A fuel is 6.6 lbs/gallon. Which gives us 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel.

Now, let's compare the sound of the jets crashing and exploding 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel to a 273 lb. thermobaric.

Approximately 900 feet away, the plane crashes were not very loud now where they?

So, are we really going to hear 273 lbs. of a thermobaric going off when we hardly heard 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel exploding at that height?



No of course not. Those sounds were a long distance away and much higher up and buried in the sounds of the collapsing pulverized towers. Excellent description and explanation of why the explosion sounds were not real loud and distinct. Yet many trained firefighters heard the explosions and saw the explosive patterns circling the towers.


posted by rush769
And please just explain how the special team would get 273 lbs. times I DON´T KNOW WHAT!! Probably like 1000, up there would you?



Simple. People like this guy below receiving special security passes from an unknown tenant or tenants of the WTC Towers. We really do not know how many security passes were handed out do we? Much of their work could have been done at night when most Tower workers were home sleeping and when the cleaning crews were wandering around doing their jobs. With billions of $$$$$ in NWO funds available, you do not think 9-11 perps such as Marvin P Bush could buy a few security guards for himself nor install some security guards of his own choosing?



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.

"We don't know (which one) because all our records were destroyed in the World Trade Center, as were some of the people who know that," Hicks said.
whatreallyhappened.com...


So how many more guys like Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad do we not know about, with security passes to the 6 underground level basement? Hundreds? How many do we not know about who had security passes to other areas of the towers? Hundreds? Hammad was found out completely by accident and it sure was not the FBI trying to find him was it?

Tennessee driver's license examiner Katherine Smith who caught Hammad, died in a fiery car crash a day before she was to appear in court at his hearing. I wonder if the FBI or other 9-11 perps got rid of her for exposing their 9-11 Demolition Explosive Planting INSIDE JOB?

It seems the towers were much emptier at night when much of the demolition preparation work could have been done. I think the 'HOW' has been successfully answered.



• The buildings were half-empty when the jets struck. USA TODAY estimates 5,000 to 7,000 people were in each tower when the attack began. Earlier estimates ranged from 10,000 to 25,000 per tower. But company head counts show many desks were empty at 8:46 a.m. There were few tourists; the observation deck wasn't scheduled to open until 9:30 a.m.

• Most of the dead were in the north tower, the first one hit and the second to collapse. USA TODAY documented 1,434 who died in the north tower vs. 599 in the south tower. (Locations could not be determined for 147 of the building occupants.) An analysis shows that two-thirds of south tower occupants evacuated the upper floors during the 16 1/2 minutes between the attacks. In the north tower, an average of 78 people died per floor at the crash area and above, compared with 19 people per floor in the south tower.

• One stairway in the south tower remained open above the crash, but few used it to escape. Stairway A, one of three, was unobstructed from top to bottom. The jet crashed into the 78th through 84th floors of the south tower. A few people escaped from the 78th floor down these stairs. One person went down the stairs from the 81st floor, two from the 84th floor and one from the 91st. Others went up these stairs in search of a helicopter rescue that wasn't possible because of heavy smoke on the rooftop.

• Elevator mechanics left the buildings after the second jet hit. Eighty-three mechanics from ACE Elevator of Palisades Park, N.J., left the buildings when the second jet hit. Dozens of people were trapped inside elevators at the time, according to the Port Authority. An elevator mechanic from another company rushed to the buildings from down the street and died trying to rescue people.

Of 599 fatalities in the south tower, only four worked below the crash area. Nobody who worked on the 58th floor or lower is known to have died.

Although the official death toll stayed above 4,000 until Nov. 19, the inaccuracy of the estimates became apparent just days after the attack. All major companies with employees in the towers estimated the number of missing and presumed dead within 48 hours of the attacks, and their estimates were far lower than police figures.

Morgan Stanley, the largest tenant in the World Trade Center, occupied 21 floors in the south tower between the 43rd and 74th floors. Of 2,500 employees who worked in the building, only six died, including three security officials who stayed to evacuate the building.

Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, the second-largest tenant, occupied 10 floors in the north tower between the 17th and 31st floors. All but nine of its 1,900 employees survived.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Plus, I thought that the fuel thing wasn't an explosion, but a deflagration, which would have much less power/detonation velocity to it. Weren't you and/or bsbray argueing this at some point in the past? Have you changed your mind about that now, and now made your past argument wrong?


Thanks for pointing this out.


One of my other working theories is that the jet fuel created a natural FAE much like a thermobaric. If it splashed down to the sub-basements and then the fumes slowly made their way to the impact fires.

It could maybe explain why WTC 2 collapsed first. ? Since it was hit lower down.

Like I keep saying. I'm not married to the thermite/thermobaric bombs/our government did it/another government did it. etc. theories. I'm definitely open to more mundane explanations.

p.s. Just because I've argued something in the past, does not automatically mean I believe the same today. It's called opening your mind. You should try it sometime.



And, you're claiming that 100% of the fuel would have been used in this deflagration. Do you have any reason to believe this?


OK. Let's say half? That's still what? 5,000 gallons?


Another thing, it is your duty to demonstrate that your working hypothesis has any legs to it.


That you are correct on. If I was to write a paper/white paper/journal entry etc. to be peer reviewed and also notice I call it "theory" and not "hypothesis". As of now, I'm just speculating on an internet forum. So therefore, I have to prove nothing to no one. If someone has more information that can refute my speculations, then I'm all for it. As of yet, no one has. But, I'm not saying they have to either.

I have admitted that doing thermobaric calculations is over my head. But, I believe I have sufficiently proven that thermobarics have an equivalent weight of TNT of 18%.

Have I not?


NIST was never tasked to estimate the amount of explosives needed to "blow" an exterior column 500', so your statement is a lie.

So you have failed yet again.


NIST was tasked with what happened. A thermobaric bomb is a valid scenario IMO, if not for the fact there was jet fuel mixing with the air in there alone. So, again. Why wasn't it investigated?



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
As you can read, this is a bomb to be deployed by an airplane, a bomber!
And just for argument´s sake, let´s say you have developed "portable" thermobaric weapons.
1. How could you get them to the places where they need to be?
2. How many would be needed?

And about the LOUD NOISE of the collapse, explosives would have been heard through that anyway.




Thermobaric bombs, which the U.S. military is striving to perfect, may also be emerging as a weapon of choice for terrorists, according to a bomb expert at Battelle, a research institute...


www.defensetech.org...

NATIONAL TERROR ALERT


Thermobaric Bombs - al Qaeda’s New Weapon of Terror


www.nationalterroralert.com...

So, what's that again?



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
AGAIN:

1. How could you get them to the places where they need to be?
2. How many would be needed?

And about the LOUD NOISE of the collapse, explosives would have been heard through that anyway.

By the way, the refference that you give is from Sep-08. Seven years after 9/11. Are you also implying this technology was available to the "perps" back then? And also, the refference is about a TRUCK BOMB.

And another thing: If thermobaric bombs had been used in the towers, we would have seen a HUGE FIREBALL or many fire balls, coming down with the collapse.




posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
AGAIN:

1. How could you get them to the places where they need to be?


The core structure was pretty darn big I believe?


2. How many would be needed?


Here we go again. "How many". "How many exactly would be needed". "How much on how many floor".

Here's a how question for you:

How many times do I need to explain that you guys believe it happened the way it did with ZERO....count it again...ZERO.

So, I propose 1 god damn pound. How's that?


And about the LOUD NOISE of the collapse, explosives would have been heard through that anyway.


Do you have scientific evidence to back that up or are you going by "belief"?


By the way, the refference that you give is from Sep-08. Seven years after 9/11. Are you also implying this technology was available to the "perps" back then? And also, the refference is about a TRUCK BOMB.


Yes, there's a huge difference.



And another thing: If thermobaric bombs had been used in the towers, we would have seen a HUGE FIREBALL or many fire balls, coming down with the collapse.



You mean like what we saw? Or how else did everything catch fire in the sourounding area? From the fires that were going out in the towers way up in the 80th floor falling through air 900 feet?

Please.

[edit on 12/18/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/18/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Griff, I really don´t get you! These are your words:


Originally posted by Griff

I have admitted that doing thermobaric calculations is over my head.

("and")

A thermobaric bomb is a valid scenario IMO, if not for the fact there was jet fuel mixing with the air in there alone. So, again. Why wasn't it investigated?


How can you state that doing thermobaric calcs. is over your head and yet that is a valid scenario.
I guess anything goes then, right?



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
ABOUT THE FIREBALL.
There was no fireball. What we all saw was the collapsing structure. Mainly the building disintegrating, lots of smoke, dust, debris flying around, and actually the amount of fire during collapse in my opinion was very litle.
Nothing like what is explained about the thermobaric bomb you provided the link to. Nothing to do whatsoever!!



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Griff, I really don´t get you! These are your words:


Originally posted by Griff

I have admitted that doing thermobaric calculations is over my head.

("and")

A thermobaric bomb is a valid scenario IMO, if not for the fact there was jet fuel mixing with the air in there alone. So, again. Why wasn't it investigated?


How can you state that doing thermobaric calcs. is over your head and yet that is a valid scenario.
I guess anything goes then, right?


Just because I don't have the super computer to calculate a thermobaric over pressure and shock wave doesn't negate the fact that it could be a valid scenario. One that has not been investigated. And just saying "you would hear it" is not valid IMO.

Until about a decade ago, we didn't know how to calculate how a bumblebee could fly. Now we can. Does that mean a bumblebee could not fly until we learned how to calculate it?



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
1. How could you get them to the places where they need to be?


The core structure was pretty darn big I believe?


But we can all clearly see the core structure standing after most of the surrounding structure has collapsed. So you would have to rule out placing explosives there, because obviously if explosives or thermobaric bombs were placed in the core structure this would have failed first.

So I would have to say, that can´t be a correct answer!



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
ABOUT THE FIREBALL.
There was no fireball. What we all saw was the collapsing structure. Mainly the building disintegrating, lots of smoke, dust, debris flying around, and actually the amount of fire during collapse in my opinion was very litle.
Nothing like what is explained about the thermobaric bomb you provided the link to. Nothing to do whatsoever!!


Relatively speaking, it doesn't look all that impressive to me. Especially once the fireball is hidden by the concrete dust (in this case concrete masonry units).

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
But we can all clearly see the core structure standing after most of the surrounding structure has collapsed. So you would have to rule out placing explosives there, because obviously if explosives or thermobaric bombs were placed in the core structure this would have failed first.


I would give you a thumbs up and a star for pointing this out had the entire core structure stayed intact. Remember that thermobarics are unpredictable.
Oh well, gave you a thumbs up anyway.



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-I have admitted that doing thermobaric calculations is over my head. But, I believe I have sufficiently proven that thermobarics have an equivalent weight of TNT of 18%.
Have I not?

2-NIST was tasked with what happened.

3- A thermobaric bomb is a valid scenario IMO, if not for the fact there was jet fuel mixing with the air in there alone. So, again. Why wasn't it investigated?


1- all this means is that it would be easier to transport/conceal. It does NOT address the blast effects though. This is the key issue you're avoiding. What you're doing is nothing more than setting up a smokescreen.

2- they have told us what happened. Your disbelief in it does not mean it's not true. Do you have a better hypothesis? Can you supply a logical reason to consider it?

3- no, it's not. And here's the crux. You need to show that it's possible for everyone to miss the blast effects/noise of these TB's, whether you propose a naturally occuring TB or not.



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- all this means is that it would be easier to transport/conceal. It does NOT address the blast effects though.


As I'm not a demolitions expert, you could very well be correct. Hence why I keep asking you to help. Since you have all the answers.


This is the key issue you're avoiding.


I'm not trying to avoid anything. I can not calculate the blast effects of a thermobaric because the shock wave reverberates and ricochets off the walls. At least that is what my research into the matter has told me.

Again. If you can calculate thermobaric shock waves then be my guest. Anything to prove me wrong, right? Here's your chance.


What you're doing is nothing more than setting up a smokescreen.


You mean like tons of crushed concrete?


2- they have told us what happened.


No truer words have ever been spoken.


3- no, it's not. And here's the crux. You need to show that it's possible for everyone to miss the blast effects/noise of these TB's, whether you propose a naturally occuring TB or not.


Blast effects: Crushed concrete used as a smoke screen along with walls "peeling like a banana"

Noise: How loud is a building crashing down? Aren't you one of the proponents that says some of the "explosions" heard on 9/11 were actually interior structures collapsing?



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Lots of people have testified to hearing explosions, or at least sounds they could only describe as like explosions. I'm not talking about the ones that were talking about bodies hitting the concrete, or falling through glass and causing glass to shatter. I'm talking about people like the firefighters on the Naudet bros' footage, "boom boom boom boom boom."

Every time someone mentions them, someone else has a convenient excuse. The ultimate excuse being, a building collapsing just sounds explosive (but not explosive enough -- assuming what type of explosive, I couldn't say). Guess what? Your convenient excuses aren't proven. They're your conjecture in place of ours, that conform to your biases instead of ours. You can justify it to yourselves however you'd like, calling us paranoid or whatever you like. We have names for you too. And at the end of the day, people could have still heard actual explosives going off, and yet because of your convenient excuses that you have dreamed up for yourselves, you think you've already disproven anyone hearing explosives when really you never did. It was never proven.

So think about the double-standards here, asking for an explanation but then totally dismissing it out of hand and even having the arrogance to think you've sufficiently justified yourself.

You know what else? None of us could be expected to know what kinds of explosives or sol-gels or whatever were in that building if they were demolished, or where they would have been placed. Let me repeat that: None of us could be expected to know what kinds of explosives or sol-gels or whatever were in that building if they were demolished, or where they would have been placed. We were not paid to figure it out. We would be among the victims, in our scenario. So take that into consideration when you challenge what we think, because trying to show us the absurdity of any ill-defined, vague, incomplete demolition theory (because seriously, how in the hell could we just happen to know this stuff?), is going to continue to be a fruitless endeavor for you. The problem that you can face, if you can put away your bias, is how piss-poor of a job the investigation federal agencies did, and how much information they have withheld or completely neglected to investigate. The case is still wide open, the global collapses have not been investigation or explained even by NIST, and there are a number of things that just don't add up about these things causing themselves and acting under potential energy alone.

We've been saying it for years but no one wants to hear, and anyone will come up with any excuse imaginable to delay hearing it.

[edit on 20-12-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-As I'm not a demolitions expert, you could very well be correct. Hence why I keep asking you to help. Since you have all the answers.

2-I can not calculate the blast effects of a thermobaric because the shock wave reverberates and ricochets off the walls. At least that is what my research into the matter has told me.

3-Anything to prove me wrong, right? Here's your chance.

4-No truer words have ever been spoken.

5-Blast effects: Crushed concrete used as a smoke screen along with walls "peeling like a banana"



1- I HAVE helped you. I've told you that you should do some math that shows your theory is even possible. You've made only lame attempts at it. I wonder why...

2- so do it without taking these into account to get a baseline first. Just like Mackey didn't account for it in his. Gotta start somewhere.

3- you haven't presented ANY evidence worth considering yet Griff. Only innuendo and opinion. I can't counter opinion, only try to get something concrete outta you.

4- yep. So you agree with NIST now?

5- or maybe blast effects can be attributed to the air being pushed out of the building. Remember that? You called that investigation to be "futile". Well lucky enough for you, Bazant already has:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

In spite of these uncertainties, it is clear that the exit air speed is of the order of 500 mph and
that its fluctuations must reach the speed of sound. This must, of course, create sonic booms,
which are easily mistaken for explosions



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join