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.

 

Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

page: 10
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
It's amazing what you can get away with when you pose as someone in authority:

"A man posing as a maintenance worker is suspected of multiple thefts and home invasions at an Ann Arbor apartment complex while University of Michigan students moved in this week, reports said."
Source: blog.mlive.com...

"Investigators said Hooten and a man still at large made off with hundreds of dollars by standing outside a night deposit slot on Aug. 15 and persuading people to hand over their money because the slot wasn’t working... Police said the men wore blue uniforms and had security badges, identification cards and guns."
Source: www.thenewstribune.com...

"He posed as a security guard and IT worker to gain access to office premises and steal IT kit, which he subsequently resold. In some cases, Madrid placed counterfeit barcodes on expensive kit in an attempt to buy it at knock-off prices. The crimes were carried out between September 2006 and March 2008, when he arrested and slung into detention."
Source: www.theregister.co.uk...

"prosecutors believe a man wearing a black security uniform entered the bank, at 11501 Georgia Ave., the morning of Jan. 9 posing as a security guard from AT Systems, an armored carrier that services the bank. The bank's head teller, Elizabeth K. Tarke, met the man and released $574,500 to him as he signed a sheet used by AT Systems."
Source: www.gazette.net...


"The Chaser pranksters charged for breaching APEC security with a bogus
motorcade that came close to George W Bush's hotel say police gave them
permission.

A source inside the show has told The Daily Telegraph the team never
expected to get so far. The skit had been approved by ABC lawyers but
was written in the assumption they would be stopped at the first
checkpoint.

Instead they were waved through the first on Macquarie St, then a
second, which had sniffer dogs, and eventually stopped themselves at
Bridge St."
Source: www.infosecnews.org...

"Security has been tight at many of the Olympic sites, and officials were even more wary after a man who posed as a security guard entered the opening ceremonies on July 19 armed with a loaded weapon before being intercepted."
Source: www.nytimes.com...

"Investigators say one of the suspects impersonated a security guard and entered the BB&T Bank on the 11,500-block of Georgia Avenue last Wednesday. The suspect presented himself as a substitute guard and left the bank with an undisclosed amount of cash. When the regular guard arrived Thursday for the scheduled pick-up, he explained that the unknown man was not an employee and the authorities were called."
Source: www.wjla.com...

My opinion.... people can be duped pretty easily.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by godless
 





In point of fact the Empire State Building was struck by a tanker plane full of jet fuel a few years before the Trade Center was designed. There was a fire, to be sure, but the structure reamained standing


It was a B 25 bomber converted into personnel transport - struck building
in July 1945. Not a tanker plane as they didn't exist in 1945.

Impact forces between 1945 incident and 9/11 - are 1 to 100 based on
aircraft weight and speed differences

Different building, different planes, different impact speeds = different
results.....



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

I'll first note thedman's post above, which shows he doesn't buy what you just acknowledge--grudgingly--as an FBI "screwup." Some screwup!

I'll also refer you to my earlier post about using fibre optic lines for CD; does the discovery of that 2001 patent weaken or strengthen the argument of this thread?



I don't acknowledge a thing, for I haven't looked into that - cuz it ain't relevant.

Fiberoptics don't do a damn thing for your argument.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Don't expect me to cure your deafness, Seymour, nor your blindness, but here you go:



ETA: Sorry about that.....

*Snip*

ETA: Don't expect me to cure YOUR blindness either.

That video has been debunked..... wait for it.... by the TM itself.

The sound was added in for a tv show I believe.

So try again if you want to regain some credibility.


Removed Unnecessary Insult: Review This Link: Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

[edit on 2/4/2009 by semperfortis]

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
If you can't post without insulting other members, I suggest you don't post at all.

Any further posts that "include" an insult, even thinly veiled ones, will be removed and the poster possibly warned.

Semper



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by godless

As a person who has personally been employed in the engineering field for over 20 years and who has been schooled in both physics and structures it is my personal opinion that the collisions of the jet airliners and the subsequent fires could never have naturally caused those buildings to collapse in on themselves and be completely obliterated in the way that they were.



Fine......

So then you should have no problem showing why Bazant is wrong. Given your stated work experience, you should be able to provide your own maths. Please prove your opinions to be well reasoned and have been decided upon through your own investigation by doing this, and NOT just copy/paste something from a truth site.

Here are the 2 PUBLISHED papers that you need to refute:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

www.911-strike.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Those are articles from the MSM?

I thought that the MSM couldn't be trusted?

Or is this a disinfo campaign, set into motion years before 9/11 to send the TM off on red herrings?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Ittan
 


LMAO!




OK. That made my day. Priceless.

We sample a small spectrum, and in most cases, we don't know much of what goes on unless it is on the news for a week.

This expectation that someone would know, that a Mac truck was backed up to your house and replaced all your furniture, also assumes that someone is watching and knows that you weren't involved in the truck. Most people have better things to do, than to worry about every unexplained guy in a hard hat around them.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by godless
 





In point of fact the Empire State Building was struck by a tanker plane full of jet fuel a few years before the Trade Center was designed. There was a fire, to be sure, but the structure reamained standing


It was a B 25 bomber converted into personnel transport - struck building
in July 1945. Not a tanker plane as they didn't exist in 1945.

Impact forces between 1945 incident and 9/11 - are 1 to 100 based on
aircraft weight and speed differences

Different building, different planes, different impact speeds = different
results.....


If you remember, there was a huge truck bomb set off in the North Tower's parking garage. Many times the force of exploding kerosene (which doesn't explode).

In fact, two weeks before it opened, a fire raged over two full floors at the WTC for over three hours. They then had to put in sprinkler systems. Obviously, the building was fit to stand after a fire and after a bomb -- easily the equivalent of a plane flying into it. In fact, after the collision of the Military plane with the Empire State Building, they had to design the WTC to withstand a simultaneous strike of three large aircraft.

The Empire State building is smaller, and does not have the very effective hollow tube support structure with a flexible bridge like flooring system that allows it to withstand much more impact at the WTC.

The BEST explanation, is that someone rigged charges, and fed us a line of BS to tell us that an airplane can actually make the WTC collapse. The first person I ever heard come up with a theory about a pancake collapse was actually -- ME. I was in the WTC in 1999 and was talking to my then wife to be. She asked me if something could bring it down. I said; maybe if you had a plane with a huge fire, and it caused at least two floors to collapse. I didn't know then that the building was designed at 3 times load capacity -- not just the standard 2. But I always pictured it as a slow collapse, because each floor of the building ALREADY holds up the entire weight above it. What a pancake collapse would do would be to rip each floor from the center supports because the FLOORS are not designed to hold the entire weight.

But what we saw on 9/11 was impossible. The center core of the building would have been left standing unless cut, or severed with shaped charges and/or Thermite. If you had a pancake collapse -- the FLOORS would have been ripped from the core, and you'd have at least half or more of it standing straight up.

An airplane doesn't have a hot enough temperature -- much less enough HEAT to weaken the structure. IF there were enough heat, we would have seen more molten glass near the outside wall, because those struts would be a lot hotter before they got weak.

A complete failure without resistance falling at freefall speed? How ignorant of science do you have to believe such crazy ass physics. It isn't possible.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by godless

As a person who has personally been employed in the engineering field for over 20 years and who has been schooled in both physics and structures it is my personal opinion that the collisions of the jet airliners and the subsequent fires could never have naturally caused those buildings to collapse in on themselves and be completely obliterated in the way that they were.



Fine......

So then you should have no problem showing why Bazant is wrong. Given your stated work experience, you should be able to provide your own maths. Please prove your opinions to be well reasoned and have been decided upon through your own investigation by doing this, and NOT just copy/paste something from a truth site.

Here are the 2 PUBLISHED papers that you need to refute:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

www.911-strike.com...


>> Wow! That's a tall order.

First he'd have to have detailed planes of the WTC. Then the materials and specified load bearing and heat profile for all the materials. A Model would have to be built in a computer, that could compute these forces. A second program that computes the stress lines created by heat would have to be run on top of that data.

The military and auto manufacturers probably have some CAD programs that do this -- but they aren't cheap, easy or accessible. It would probably take about a year with someone well versed in the programs. The model would probably be about a Gig or more in size.

>> Here is a simpler test. Put 1 ball on one side of a pool table, and a row of 8 on the other side. Hit the 1 ball with another ball and see the time it takes to get to the other side. Then do the same with the other 8. You will notice that there is more time taken for the series of balls -- and they are round and don't provide a lot of resistance.

This simple physics test should tell you that; Structures not rigged with charges, cannot fall at free-fall speed.

You could do a lot of other tests, like put an iron bar in an oven with pure kerosene (jet fuel) and pure oxygen. Then put weight on the bar and see how it's load bearing changed. You would find that it isn't hot enough to reduce the strength of that bar very much. You have run a test on the MOST stress that jet fuel could provide.

If you want to believe the theory that a large plane could have cut through the core -- how did it do so evenly? The only two really hard structures on a plane -- from all the crash tests so far, are the engines. The rest is aluminum, good tensile strength but not used in hammers. You can look at pictures of the Pentagon -- two holes made.

So, you'd have -- if your wildest fantasies about airplane forces are correct, two 14' holes would go straight through the cores -- how does that sever through ALL of the core, and provide a clean break? You would have some irregularity and the structure would list to one side a bit.

Sounds like a magic "engine" with ricochet. Probably circled around the building and hit the governor as well.

I don't know if there is any amount of wind resistance, however, which could have made those twenty stories from the North tower, disintegrate in mid-air.... look again at the video.

>> To attempt to explain Building 7 collapse, take any structure with four supports like a chair. Now, break one leg of it. If it is going to fall over, it goes sideways.

The attempts to explain the collapse in its own footprint of building 7, from apparently a magic fireball. Then we have to believe that there was more horizontal strength than vertical. One corner should have fallen or the building would have slumped over. I don't think you can find any record of a building with 1 corner destroyed, then moving straight down at freefall speed.

You can do some of these simple tests at home -- get your friends to verify your results. Repeat it as many times as you like. You don't need a complex model to tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to collapse a building in its own footprint at freefall without explosives -- unless of course, it was made from twigs.

I'm also wondering about all those pointy cuts in the steel supports we see in aftermath photos. Doesn't steel bend, or was this a magic Steel that snaps like it was cut?

Lots of magic going on here when we could be using science.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

they had to design the WTC to withstand a simultaneous strike of three large aircraft.



I'd bet my house payment that you are unable to find the city code that requires this.

Which of course means you made this up.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-Wow! That's a tall order.

2-First he'd have to have detailed planes of the WTC. Then the materials and specified load bearing and heat profile for all the materials.



1- not for a supposed engineer.

2-Why? Bazant didn't have them on Sept 13, 2001 either. All he must do is read his papers, tell us what he got wrong, and provide the necessary maths that he got wrong.

Or perhaps you'd like to give it a stab?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-Here is a simpler test. Put 1 ball on one side of a pool table, and a row of 8 on the other side.

2-You could do a lot of other tests, like put an iron bar in an oven with pure kerosene (jet fuel) and pure oxygen. Then put weight on the bar and see how it's load bearing changed.


3-If you want to believe the theory that a large plane could have cut through the core -- how did it do so evenly? ....how does that sever through ALL of the core, and provide a clean break?


4-To attempt to explain Building 7 collapse, take any structure with four supports like a chair. Now, break one leg of it. If it is going to fall over, it goes sideways.

5-I don't think you can find any record of a building with 1 corner destroyed, then moving straight down at freefall speed.

6-I'm also wondering about all those pointy cuts in the steel supports we see in aftermath photos. Doesn't steel bend, or was this a magic Steel that snaps like it was cut?

7-Lots of magic going on here when we could be using science.


1- rolling balls ACROSS a table doesn't include the gravity component of any collapse. So your example has failed at providing anything relevant.

2- simply putting an iron bar into an oven or whatever doesn't take into consideration the time component: "Since the thermally
activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must
have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one
hour. These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al.
(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C." wtc7lies.googlepages.com... So your example has failed at providing anything relevant.

3- nobody says that. So once again, you have failed, only this time, your question is irrelevant, also, a strawman.

4- 7 had MANY "legs". So your example has failed at providing anything relevant.

5- the collapse started from the inside, clearly evidenced by the penthouse falling into the structure ~ 6 seconds before the global collapse begins. So your example has failed at providing anything relevant.

6- 7 was an irregular shape. Therefore, many connections were made at an angle. When these connections failed......



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

That video has been debunked..... wait for it.... by the TM itself.

The sound was added in for a tv show I believe.


Could you substantiate that last comment please.
I expected you to try that tack. I could have posted several other videos to back up the point - but no doubt they're all faked too. That's why I posted a sample of the numerous FDNY witnesses who attested to the same thing.



[edit on 4-2-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

I could have posted several other videos to back up the point



No, you can't.

So why'd you post it in the first place, if you're already aware that it is a fake?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I can...



Can you substantiate your claim about the other video?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis
I can...



Nope.

I said that you cannot provide anything that shows the 130-140 dB sounds at collapse initiation. You haven't.

Go here:

www.makeitlouder.com...

To find out just how loud they would have been across the river. They still would have been LOUD, not a rumble. Internally, the SPL levels would have been on the order of 190 dB.

Besides, that noise is from the wind.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Can you substantiate your claim about the other video?


www.youtube.com...

"This audio is faked:

z10.invisionfree(dot)com/Loose _Change_Forum/index(dot)php?sh owtopic=11280

There's plenty of real evidence showing that 9/11 was staged... don't fall for the fake stuff. "

Debunked long ago on the Loose Change Forum.

"Yes, this is fake. But this building was demolished. I know it. "



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Here is an article about how the "man dead for 5 days" is a hoax:

www.snopes.com...

Another prime example of how people use not even factual data to try and backup their claims that apparently, no one notices what is going on. Perhaps using something that orginated from a tabloid is not your best bet when trying to prove a point.

There is no doubt that there is a lack of folks wanting to get involved in an event as it occurs. But there is no lack of nosy people. People want to know what's going on. They like to be "in the know."

Ask yourself: if you were a building maintenance worker, and you noticed a crew of people installing something you are not familiar with it, would you simply walk off unconcerned?

But really it doesn't matter at this point. Apparently, people are utterly oblivious to common events and objects. Well, people that don't help your theories. They don't know the difference between a passenger jet and a missile. When they go to the airport, they are wondering if those are missiles or airplanes on the runway. "Pardon me miss.. am I getting on a plane or a missile, I'm just trying to be safe here."


For some reason reason, those particular folks who say anything that may be used to try and bolster your case are all brilliant, aware, savvy, smart people! It's a strange phenomena.




top topics



 
46
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join