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: 11
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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.


How much do you pay for your house each month?

911research.wtc7.net...
Now I know, you will refute anything just coming from a "truther" site. But they have links to every detail supported from engineers who worked on the designs.
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com...
911research.wtc7.net... [see page 131]
A FEMA study; www.fema.gov...
and more for some information on fires; www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Another great compilation; arabesque911.blogspot.com...


I was built to have half its support structures taken out and still withstand 100 MPH winds. The 707's of the time were only slightly smaller than the 757 and similar fuel carrying. Yes, it was built to withstand 3 simultaneous jet impacts of a 707.




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
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.


Turned out to be an example of how little people pay attention anyway, didn't it?


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?


That's where permits and clearance comes in. Not only is it not hard to walk around unchecked by people, it's also not hard to have someone "in on it" or not to sign for you to come into a building for any given maintenance reason that will get your team in the relevant places, especially when influential people are involved (and why wouldn't they be?). The WTC's former security company was tied to a number of infamous security breaches before 9/11.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

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


My test is to talk about the TRANSFER IN ENERGY. Balls have NO support. Yes, gravity would help -- but we are talking about structures that ALREADY resist the downward force of the building.

It would take at least 60 to 90 seconds for a pancake collapse.



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.

The TEMPERATURE under ideal conditions, would have been 500 degrees too cold. HEAT is another important factor -- the reason that thin pieces of metal can keep your oven in place. Metal is really hard to heat because it conducts. That's why TIME is such a factor.

The WTC North Tower already had a full on blaze for three hours before it opened. You can get all excited about the Kerosene, but that would have burnt up in the first 15 minutes. After that, it is the materials burning in the office that keep the heat going -- no matter what the original source of fire was. The conditions were not ideal, because we saw black smoke, and people looking out of the holes in the structure about 10 feet away from what was supposed to be melting steel.

So, a 3 hour burn did not bring it down -- the fires on 9.11 would have been about the same temperature and they only lasted an hour. Also, flame retardant was put on the metal beams and fire extinguishers installed. No blast stripped off that flame retardant -- otherwise the windows would have all been blown out. We didn't see that. And I don't see a lot of winds that can strip paint off steel. Kind of fantastical.



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

Really? If one support tube is left intact -- then it doesn't "Fall straight down." One beam of resistance means it topple's over or slumps. You have to have two 14' engines cut through the entire core cleanly, or you can't make the CORE and the floors fall into their own footprint.



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

Have you heard of simplified models or abstraction? If there are MORE legs, then there is more support, and even less likely to collapse on itself. 3 legged chairs topple easier than for, for instance. But you take out a corner of a building -- and that corner falls first.



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......

What? How does the core falling first mean that steel beams are going to show diagonal cuts? IF steel is crushed, then it is bent. If the core broke where the plane it -- then of course, you still have 80 stories of core left intact.

How does a plane strike make it slump anyway? It means someone blew the core at the base, and that weight is pulling on the floors.

You really kind of ignored 5: No evidence of prior collapses into footprints of buildings with a corner destroyed. I could also add; no prior instance of a steel structured building collapsing due to fire.

In your own mind, I guess you imagine you rebutted these arguments. I'm not even bothering with the "modeling this is easy" point you made. Nobody could have modeled the forces involved in two days, and few could do it in a year. You could do a simplified model, but all of those would show that the core not cut by the airplane would HAVE TO be still standing -- because they held up the weight of the structure. There is nothing about a fire on the 84th floor (about), that would weaken the core below it. The heat -- in the farfetched fantasy, being enough to weaken the structure -- DOES NOT weaken the structure below.

Therefore, the only scenario is a pancake collapse of the floors -- ripping free of the inner core. So, why did the inner core fall if it wasn't from demolition charges?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And oh yeah, would these be the hush-a-boom explosives again?


Just to recap - this is where our debate about the explosives started. First you can't hear them at all, now you still can't hear them or they are of no significance because you believe they cannot be between 130-140dB.

BBC reported: "...an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much much lower. I don't know what on earth caused that."



The link you posted that "proves" the audio in the first video I posted was faked is to a non-existent page.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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.


How much do you pay for your house each month?



$3347.

Pay up.

Read your own statement above. You said they HAD to design them for 3 aircraft......

I asked for the city codes.

You fail.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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.


How much do you pay for your house each month?



$3347.

Pay up.

Read your own statement above. You said they HAD to design them for 3 aircraft......

I asked for the city codes.

You fail.


>> I linked to an Architect who is on the record saying they were designed for 3 aircraft.

If I had the city code (ordinance), I also might have a sample of the steel from the building -- which nobody does because they shipped it all off to China.

What, you expect them to incriminate themselves?

More about the "Building Codes" later....

>> For the record, you made a bet with yourself, then determined the way it would be satisfied -- I only asked you how much you pay. It's missing such details that keep people in the dark.

If there is the OFFICIAL building code request, you might find that at the Ports Authority. However, there is plenty of documentation which discusses the design and testing of the building, and how it was redesigned WITH AIRCRAFT STRIKES IN MIND. That is the point of this discussion, right?

Why is it, the people after the TRUTH, must provide all the details. Everything has been done to stifle a real investigation, and to push out a lot of smoke and nonsense. If no conspiracy exists, then it is strange that the Bush administration had to cover everything up and act guilty as hell. There isn't any one facet of the whole "disaster" that adds up and has a reasonable sequence of events.

Some people say that the jet flew over the Pentagon, and instead, a missile hit it. Well, that could be total nonsense. And easily disproved. Except, there is nothing but 5 frames of video of the incident. We KNOW that video was taken from a convenience store and confiscated from their security camera (obviously, it was under more surveillance than the Pentagon), but now we have nothing. The RADAR tapes could have shown that no plane flew over. and passed the Pentagon -- but of course, those tapes were destroyed by the Head of security at the FAA who happened to take over that day. He had no explanation for why he destroyed the tapes.

Well NORAD could have told us why they couldn't FIND the damn WTC on a map with their jets. But of course, there was a drill of 5 different exercises of planes flying into buildings conducted by Dick Cheney. You know how much time he spent in meetings about terrorism or military exercises before 9/11? Zero hours.

How the hell do I have all the answers? I can damn well point to a firm record of how the building was designed... here I'll spoon feed it to you;
[qoute]
en.wikipedia.org...
Aircraft impact
The structural engineers on the project also considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[60] In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707, which might be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.[61] NIST found a three page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 mph (970 km/h), was indeed considered, but the original documentation of the study was lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[62] In 1993, John Skilling recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "The building structure would still be there."[63] However, he gave little thought to how the structure would behave in an intense fire that would result from an aircraft impact. They simply assumed that the World Trade Center's trusses and columns would perform as well as the heavy masonry and steel structure in the Empire State Building.[64]


Wow, What a coincidence! The one place I could actually dig up a copy of the original Building Code was destroyed in the WTC collapse! You must win all sorts of bets setting them up like this. The Ports Authority that has the building codes for the WTC has been destroyed. Guilliania also got $1 Million in campaign contributions to set up his emergency command post inside of the WTC complex. Wow, why would someone care that much to put it in a building that had been hit before?

Maybe you can bet me that Bush didn't have a lawsuit against his family for 17 Billion in phony Treasury Notes. Guess what? They were destroyed in Building 7 just before judgement was going to be made against the Bush family. Wow! how lucky for them, heh? But there are still records of the court case -- unfortunately, no evidence anymore.

Lots of coincidences. I'm not putting anything on this page that doesn't have a document somewhere supporting it. Just not anything that was, like, in the WTC, OK?

>> Also, Silverstein acquired the WTC for some pittance from the Ports Authority, but was going to have to spend about a Billion $ getting rid of the Asbestos. Lucky for him it got destroyed -- he made a bundle.

ENRON, the building owner, the Bush family and numerous others, benefitted from the destruction of Building 7.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
First, how about the WTC blueprints found in the trash. That is old news as you can find them on the web. However, this will not help this argument.

Second, the fire that occurred before opening was FAR from a full on blaze. There was smoke damage and that was about it. No conparision to a plane going 500 mph slamming into a building 70 stories up.

Third, see number 2 for the Empire State. Different plane, lower speed and different architecture.

Again, the OP is about someone getting in to do something that people would not see. Did anyone ever think about Mob involvement and maybe that is why there is no paper trail with servicing and maintenance and such? It is NY and they could also provide false creds. I am asking this of BSBray? Think this could have something to do with it and the paper trials maybe since I think I read that the maintenance worked in the basement was linked to the Russian Mob.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Say you have 10 people posting that a certain piece of piano music is possible to play, and 3 others posting that the same piece is impossible to play. You can draw your own conclusions.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by bsbray11]


Actually it would be more like
10 people are saying it's not possible to play.
and 3 people are saying that they have actually played it.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
In 1993, John Skilling recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "The building structure would still be there."[63] However, he gave little thought to how the structure would behave in an intense fire that would result from an aircraft impact. They simply assumed that the World Trade Center's trusses and columns would perform as well as the heavy masonry and steel structure in the Empire State Building.[64]

I just wanted to point this out from the Wikipedia entry. The "assumption" is a pretty safe one. 600 mph from a plane about the same size as a 757 hits the Empire State Building . on in a fog. Burns for a while. Building is still standing.

Masonry, is far more brittle and actually can burn vs. Steel. And steel with sprinklers and fire retardant coating (part of the Asbestos issue that the building's owner would have to deal with -- but an excellent flame retardant).

The WTC could have burnt for days. Fire was not in danger of bringing that structure down. It is still a very excellent and well thought out design that far exceeds the load capacity and safety of the Empire State Building. But, if John Skilling or someone in authority were on the record with that, they'd probably fall out of the sky in a small airplane accident.

I still worry about the man who is blowing the whistle about the NSA spying on everyone who was a rival of the Bush administration. And about Siebel Edmunds.

But the MO of the previous administration looks like that of the Mob. Their actions and missing billions looks like the Mob. Their family history and involvement in the Bay of Pigs, Silverado Savings and Loan, moving Nazi finances after WW II and many, many more incidents, makes their family look like a powerful and long-feared Mob family.

Nothing in their history, actions, or bank accounts, leads me to see any motive or ethics that would prevent them from staging a false flag.

Not that I know who did it -- only that I'm about as certain as I can be that it would have required demolitions to bring down the WTC.

>> The original post was about "is it possible to sneak people in and do this."

I also mentioned, that it was suspected that Marvin Bush had a company hired by Silverstein for security of the Building. So, there would have been nobody to challenge whoever they wanted to bring in, day or night. I'm absolutely certain, nobody would be on the record today of who was in charge of security and that the records would be available in the Ports Authority building.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's where permits and clearance comes in. Not only is it not hard to walk around unchecked by people, it's also not hard to have someone "in on it" .


Oh my god ! Even more people are now involved.

If we add up all the people truthers claim are involved in the conspiracy....Well almost everyone would be in on it.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

It would take at least 60 to 90 seconds for a pancake collapse.

I'm just curious, can your prove this statement without cutting and pasting?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

If I had the city code (ordinance), I also might have a sample of the steel from the building -- which nobody does because they shipped it all off to China.

Actually, the NIST had some they kept for their investigation. Maybe you could give them a call?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually it would be more like
10 people are saying it's not possible to play.
and 3 people are saying that they have actually played it.


Man, after all that work I did collecting those quotes from people posting in this thread, you won't even look at it straight.


Oh my god ! Even more people are now involved.


I'm sure you think many more people were involved than I do.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

It would take at least 60 to 90 seconds for a pancake collapse.

I'm just curious, can your prove this statement without cutting and pasting?



Look up an engineer named Eggars. Something like that. I've spent too much time with you folks.

The military a year or two ago, said it might have "made up" the Lusitania incident to get us into a war. That war was a long time ago,... move on.

Other than WW II, and of course the Balkans war, I can't think of one that didn't involve a false flag event.

Even the first Gulf War,... we find that it was the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter who cried to the cameras about atrocities. The Kuwaiti royals were all conveniently out of the country. Well-known scum bag, James Baker, reports that an underling told Saddam that when he asked if he could invade Kuwait, the underling made the mistake of saying; "we have no policy on that." So, Saddam was provoked by slant-drilling, Baker tells him to go a., and then we invade like the hammer of doom. Of course, we move our bases out of Saudi Arbia like Bin Laden wanted and set up in Kuwait/Iraq. Meanwhile, the fledgling Democracy movement in Kuwait is crushed.

Seems like these accidents keep working out well for the Robber Barons.

>> And dang it. The "truthers" aren't talking about a lot of people In on the scheme. You promote a lot of idiots, who cover their butts, and you only need a person at NSA, FAA and FBI -- preferably, just he people Bush appointed to lead them. Then, you sneak in about 12 to 20 demolition experts into the WTC. If I were doing it, I'd be running the security company so there really is nobody challenging them at all.

After hours, you rig charges.

24 people, give or take. To pull it off.

1 double-agent in Al Qaeda telling some jerks that it has the all clear -- since they are all cells, nobody really knows the orders are false. We already know that 4 of the alleged hijackers got passports at a CIA facility in Saudi Arabia while they were on the CIA watch list.

Don't bother me for proof -- look it up. I've provided links for most of the things I've talked about, the rest are from memory. I don't need to prove anything here that won't be proven in the course of time. This stuff happens all the time, when the military wants more power.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

If I had the city code (ordinance), I also might have a sample of the steel from the building -- which nobody does because they shipped it all off to China.

Actually, the NIST had some they kept for their investigation. Maybe you could give them a call?



They haven't released the steel for independent testing. And if you were saying the NIST was in on covering this up -- you'd need to collect the sample yourself.

NIST just admitted to "exaggerating" (read lying) about the speed of collapse of Building 7. They have revised it to "free fall speed." You know, after all the truthers got ridiculed.

Nice that everyone avoids the fact that the Building Codes were destroyed in the Ports Authority building. Nice that the total burden of proof is on people with day jobs and milling about the internet, with only newspaper clippings.

The burden of proof SHOULD have been on the rotten, war-mongering SOB's who ran this country into the ground. We don't even have receipts for $9 Billion in cash that was to be provided to the Iraqi government for rebuilding. How the heck am I supposed to get steel to test for Thermite/Thermate when about a dozen other people got turned down? There was an independent test done on the steel, taken from some scrap they sent to an Sculptor. It tested positive for residues found in demolitions and thermate.

But of course -- it's a "truther" and of course, it wasn't through official channels. There are no fricken' official channels. If they are guilty -- then I'd expect the Bush administration to act EXACTLY as they have done. I wouldn't change a thing -- they've done well, and the gullibility and/or complicity of bloggers for hire keeps it in the realm of Big Foot.

Why would an honest government be hiding everything?

They don't act like a group that has nothing to hide. And they have ignored the 9/11 Widows for Truth. The Bush government got sued by NY Firefighters, First Responders (most of them are dead now from what they breathed in), and other nations -- just to name a few. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and they don't have any support for people who were involved in the 9/11 cleanup.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually it would be more like
10 people are saying it's not possible to play.
and 3 people are saying that they have actually played it.


Man, after all that work I did collecting those quotes from people posting in this thread, you won't even look at it straight.

Actually, I adjusted it because you didn't apply proper reasoning based on the example.
And so you collected quotes. What is that supposed to prove?


Oh my god ! Even more people are now involved.


[quoet]I'm sure you think many more people were involved than I do.
Every time something new is added to the supposed conspiracy, it USUALLY involves a new group of people. More people + more people = more people.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Nice that everyone avoids the fact that the Building Codes were destroyed in the Ports Authority building.

So are you saying that every copy of the building codes were destroyed?
Just curious.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-If I had the city code (ordinance),

2-However, there is plenty of documentation which discusses the design and testing of the building, and how it was redesigned WITH AIRCRAFT STRIKES IN MIND. That is the point of this discussion, right?

3-How the hell do I have all the answers?

4-Wow, What a coincidence! The one place I could actually dig up a copy of the original Building Code was destroyed in the WTC collapse!

5-I'm not putting anything on this page that doesn't have a document somewhere supporting it.



1- city codes are still available, right?

2-no. This is about your erroneous claim that they HAD to be able to withstand 3 aircraft.....

3-because you made the claim.

4- wrong again. Reread your link. It says that the work was lost, NOT the supposed codes.

5- you have failed. Namely, you still haven't supported your claim that they HAD to.....



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
But, if John Skilling or someone in authority were on the record with that, they'd probably fall out of the sky in a small airplane accident.


Actually, Skilling is long dead. The only survivor that we hear of is Robertson. Who was 23 at the time the towers were designed. Yeah, I'm pretty positive he was one of the senior engineers at 23.



Nothing in their history, actions, or bank accounts, leads me to see any motive or ethics that would prevent them from staging a false flag.


But, but...didn't you know that these people are our saviors?

[/sarcasm]

Edit: I don't know why I always want to call him Robinson instead of Robertson.
@ myself.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's where permits and clearance comes in. Not only is it not hard to walk around unchecked by people, it's also not hard to have someone "in on it" .


Oh my god ! Even more people are now involved.

If we add up all the people truthers claim are involved in the conspiracy....Well almost everyone would be in on it.


So you are saying that if the top guy signs for something, everyone in that company also knows exactly what this person signed for? Really?

Again, I'll say it: Ignorant, unintelligent, nonobservant people. Yes.

In on it: No. They're too dumb.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join