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.

 

What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


At about 3:25 in that video something falls from the building, I was wondering if anyone caught what that was? To me it seems that something was used to break the window out.

The size (more technically, the heat release rate) of fires is limited by the flow of oxygen available to it. In all except very rare circumstances, the flow of oxygen into a room comes largely from open doors and open windows, and to a slight extent from any mechanical ventilation systems and from building leakage. Once a fire gets going, however, windows previously closed may crack and break out. Or...they may not. The results will often be drastically different, depending on whether the windows break or not. The BRI(Building Research Institute) study can be taken to imply that 3 mm window glass will break around 340°C. For thicker, 4-6 mm glass, the mean temperature of breakage would appear to be around 450°C, although the difference between the thinner and the thicker glass results seems rather larger than one would surmise. Double-glazed windows using 6 mm glass can be expected to break out at about 600ºC. Tempered-glass in not likely to break out until after room flashover has been reached.
link

So since there should be no jet fuel in wtc 7, it is to the best of my knowledge that the fires could not have gotten that hot, without some sort of help.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
here is some REAL video evidence of how bad the damage and fires were...

You can keep claiming it all you want, but fires have never brought down steel-structured highrises to this day. Nor have fires ever been able to accomplish what well-placed explosives have in all the years past:




What it comes down to is whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. It is a fact that no steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed from fire, and fact that buildings can't fall identically to a controlled demolition without explosives. It's only your theories, i.e. your denial of the facts, that help you sleep at night.

You keep denying the facts and keep fantasizing about your theories while the rest of us obtain a new investigation.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



And now I back out in this thread. You are clearly not interested in the evidence showing you to be wrong, rather in arrogant proselytism as if you have mountains of evidence on your side. This is an impression you have gathered from researching only one side of the story. No wonder you think you sit in such a strong position, when you are blind to the other side!


POT CALLING KETTLE!


Honestly this makes no sense, you freely admit that you dismiss all evidence for one side out of hand, without even considering it. Your position is obviously one of extreme bias and I have no desire to try and change that.


“I freely admit that I dismiss all the evidences for one side out of hand without even considering it”? When did I do this? Now back to your claim that my position is obviously one of extrem bias, I really think you need to take a long look at yourself before you start making such judgment, on other people, because, everyone on ATS that reads your posts can clearly see that, you are the one who is extremely biased, and ONE SIDED. One only needs to read your insults to see that your OS fantasy is falling apart every day and you rather cling to it than admit that you are wrong.


Look bsbray I would really appreciate it if we could make peace over this. I do not think that the 'official story' is unassailable, or perfect, or 100% accurate. It is almost certainly not, but the fact of the matter is that it provides the only complete theory of what happened to WTC1,2 and 7. Even at the very least it lays out a comprehensive theory of which significant portions could be tested by truthers.


exponent if you believe the OS is not 100% accurate then why do you support it religiously? The different between people who do not believe in your OS fairytale and you, is “we do not believe in theories as you have just stated that you believe in,” and your OS conspiracy theories do not stand up to real science period. When we applied real sciences to your conspiracy theories, it just falls apart.


I am sure that if you were to set out plans for your own investigation, you would find they line up well with NIST, and any tests you conduct produce identical results.


exponent obviously you have not done your research on 911 and NIST and that tells me how ONE SIDED you are in your research. NIST has already been proven false and maybe that is why bsbray, does not trust it, like most of us that are seeking the truth.

Do yourself a favor, and do some real research and stop parroting and peddling the governments lies about 911 we know your version all to well

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

www.studyof911.com...



The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
— Crockett Grabbe

Our government must correct all of the errors in their multiple studies of the collapse of these buildings. To do that, scientific integrity must be restored!
The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11
Crockett Grabbe

www.ae911truth.org...


Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics

We were told that the undamaged towers below the impact zone offered very little resistance -- effectively little more than air -- resulting in the complete destruction by the accelerating mass of the smaller top sections cascading downwards. But principles of physics starting with Sir Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion show that what we were told happened by the NIST Commission's Reports is not possible. Principles like Newton's Laws of Motion are facts that cannot be dismissed. The NIST Reports absurdly failed to carefully consider these physics principles when it told us the damage and subsequent collapse was caused by fires from the jet fuel. The swift collapse we witnessed, in fact, could not have been caused by the fires or any other damage from the planes.


www.informationclearinghouse.info...



Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the
physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade
Center Towers and Building 7. These issues and their unmistakable implications are
addressed.


www.journalof911studies.com...


exponent, after you have read the materials I have just handed to you, one will relies that the NIST reports are incorrect and cannot be supported by sciences in fact the NIST report is not excepted by sciences or by scholars.

You want us to believe that you are not one sided in your 911 research, then prove it?
I have sent you four good sources. I would like you to disprove the findings that these creditable scientist, have found wrong with the NIST report? If you can you will be the first.



[edit on 16-7-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
here is some REAL video evidence of how bad the damage and fires were...

You can keep claiming it all you want, but fires have never brought down steel-structured highrises to this day. Nor have fires ever been able to accomplish what well-placed explosives have in all the years past:




What it comes down to is whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. It is a fact that no steel-structured highrise has ever collapsed from fire, and fact that buildings can't fall identically to a controlled demolition without explosives. It's only your theories, i.e. your denial of the facts, that help you sleep at night.

You keep denying the facts and keep fantasizing about your theories while the rest of us obtain a new investigation.


First, this is one building that collapsed due to fire and it was only a few stories high

web.archive.org...

and here is a list of 22 others

www.fpemag.com...

You see, NIST already looked into this and again, something that would come up in court.



The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
Brick/Masonry: 5
Wood: 2
Unknown: 2
Three of the these events were from the 1970s, another three from the 1980s, four from the 1990s, and 12 in 2000 and beyond. This temporal distribution is skewed towards more recent occurrences, as expected, both due to the magnitude of the WTC (counted as four events) and Pentagon (one event) disasters of 9-11 and the news media searches.
The collapse distribution by building story height was as follows:

4-8 stories: 13
9-20: 3
21 or more: 6
Almost 60 percent of the cases are in the 4-8 stories range, with the remainder affecting much taller buildings. Six collapses occurred in buildings over 20 stories, and three of these were the WTC steel-framed buildings (1, 2, and 7).




Where is your solid proof now? I gave you 23 buildings...not just one or two. So keep believing what you read and not what you research. I already said I welcome a new incestigation but it is a waste of tax payer money.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


The Building's Structural Integrity


Probably the most notable difference between the Triangle and Kader fires is the effect they had on the structural integrity of the buildings involved. Even though the Triangle fire gutted the top three floors of the ten-storey factory building, the building remained structurally intact. The Kader buildings, on the other hand, collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

I think that sums it up.

As for the 22 others

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:


Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
Brick/Masonry: 5
Wood: 2
Unknown: 2

hmmm.... I wonder lol. 4 of the 6 steel building were on 9-11. Wood would obviously not withstand a fire. And Unknown... sounds like the building I wan to be in.

[edit on 7/16/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
sigh.


Where is your solid proof now? I gave you 23 buildings...not just one or two. So keep believing what you read and not what you research. I already said I welcome a new incestigation but it is a waste of tax payer money.


The article itself said there had only been 6 collapses to structural steel buildings (4 on 911), the toy factory wasn't framed it was a shell. Not to mention the article doesn't say which two buildings. Also it mentions countries where NIST doesn't have any juristiction, I.E. their rules weren't in place when the buildings were produced.


So you didn't give 23 buildings, you cherry picked and expected us twoooooooooooooooooferzzzzzz not to weed.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


It's like he didn't realize that his own arguement basically worked against him.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





"9/11 Eyewitness" is recorded 2 miles away from Manhattan and all you can hear are the pre-collapse detonations and the collapse detonations.


You are aware that Seigel is suing Sofia Shafquat for adding explosions to the audio soundtrack of his video! So turn up the subwoofers and listen to the sound of 911 twoof moobment lies.

www.rfcexpress.com...

forums.randi.org...

This is what Mr Seigel had to say about his experience with the 911 twoof moobment;

I found the 911 truth leadership to be a conglomeration of liars and frauds bent on a specific agenda to ferment distrust against the government and Jews using twisted logic, frauds, lies, mixed metaphors and half truths. Basically doing what they claim the government does. Once they met me and let me speak they never wanted me back again, I questioned them. Once I started to speak about their frauds they spent all their efforts to denigrate me and my efforts to expose the frauds. They did not spend one minute or ounce of energy to correct the errors! This includes Jones, Fetzer, Floum, Burks and the rest. Frankly I have never encountered the depth of sleaze anywhere outside of politicians.

As you all know she took that time to profit well and continue to claim my video the fraud and hers the ultimate authoritative video. My video meaning the raw footage I shot with original sounds



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I think a lot of attention has always been paid to the destruction of towers 1 & 2 and that has kind of shifted focus away from the other towers, which in fact could hold the key to everything.

I think most people now, whether they are ardent conspiracy theorists or just ordinary members of the public like me who want the full truth to come out, accept the fact that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Actually, it looks even more professionally and cleanly done than a lot of regular controlled demolitions! You'd think if they were going to try and make out that fire weakened that structure too, they would have least done a half-hearted demo job on it, so that it wouldn't look so controlled.....or maybe we weren't supposed to actually see it come down!

I just don't understand WTC 6. Something was definitely going on in there and it's always been overshadowed by the twin towers....maybe that was the idea!

Yesterday, I watched one documentary on the Prison Planet website called 9/11: The Great Illusion by George Humphrey and one of the points made, and shown in CNN footage, was of a huge explosion coming out of the WTC 6 building just after tower 2 had been hit. I'd never even heard anything about tower 6 before! Apparently, it burned for hours and never collapsed until it was demolished in Dec. 2001.

The weird thing is, I was doing some searching today and came across a report on FEMA's website and in the PDF file it says, "WTC 6 suffered significant impact and fire damage from the collapse of WTC 1..." There is absolutely no mention of the explosion occurring just after tower 2 had been hit and they put all the damage down to the collapse of tower 1! On top of that, in their "Observation, Findings and Recommendations" they say that because they only had access to building 5, all their findings on building 6 were "assumed to be applicable"!

Now, I'm sure all of this has been brought up and covered before, but surely things like this scream for a new investigation!

I know a lot of people are very anti-conspiracy theorists, but I really have to thank them for making me think and for making me do my own little research into the whole affair.

Maybe I'm now getting carried away with my own little conspiracy theory, but I think WTC 6 is the key. It exploded right after the 2nd tower was hit, so the whole world was watching the twin towers and not taking any notice of this little building. Why did it explode and explode so violently and how could FEMA not report this? Why was so little reported about this explosion? Fire didn't cause the explosion because fire didn't break out until after the explosion! Could WTC 6 have been some kind of control center, which was then immediately destroyed after the 2nd hit on the twin towers to hide evidence? Did something go wrong and whatever was in WTC 6 was detonated too early? I always thought it was strange the the 2nd tower to be hit was the 1st tower to totally collapse. Did all these towers have timed devices and something went wrong with the timers? Maybe someone inside WTC 6 was trying to stop the attacks and triggered a device, but was just too late?

I think if I was the person in charge of the demolitions, I would have timed the towers to collapse in the order that they were hit and I would have timed all the other smaller buildings to come down just after the 2nd tower collapsed, so that their falls would have been hidden in the enormous dust cloud. I don't think anyone was ever supposed to actually see WTC 7 come down. Tower 6 was in between towers 1 & 7 and I think both towers 6 & 7 were supposed to come down in the dust cloud of tower 1, but something went wrong in tower 6 and it detonated too early.

End of conspiracy theory...this is giving me a headache!!



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


Very well thought out and I still dont think that most people kno that 4 buildings went down not just 2 or 3.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
the toy factory wasn't framed it was a shell.

Not to mention it's not a highrise. We've been talking about steel-structured highrises this whole time and he posts a link that talks about wooden buildings and 3-storey buildings that don't come close to relating to anything about this topic. A sad attempt...



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
You are aware that Seigel is suing Sofia Shafquat for adding explosions to the audio soundtrack of his video!

I've been aware long before you and the JREF kiddies. I and others used to argue with Seigel on the original Loose Change forums years ago. Seigel is a mental case, but he has some priceless footage.



Originally posted by waypastvne
So turn up the subwoofers and listen to the sound of 911 twoof moobment lies.

I linked to Seigel's video in my previous posts, not Sofia's. Seigel's video does have explosions and some of those same explosions are corroborated by first responder testimony in the oral histories. You would know this had you been following my posts in this thread instead of doing a drive-by and not knowing what you're talking about.



Originally posted by waypastvne
This is what Mr Seigel had to say about his experience with the 911 twoof moobment;

Firstly, there is no "leadership" in the 9/11 truth movement. Secondly, he's just being pissy because we didn't embrace his ideas or theories when he peddled them several years ago. And lastly, his video alone shows he knows the buildings were brought down with explosives, regardless of his attacks on certain truth movement members.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I am responding to the comment that their has NEVER been a steel structured building that has collapsed. This is not true. So if there was a new investigation it would be a moot point since there is no precedent at that point.

Also, what is the difference if it was a 4 or 20 story structure. I am simply responding to the statement that no other buildings have collapsed as well as NIST already exploring them. Also, a concrete reinforced steel building would be tougher to bring down than a tube in tube structure that was just struck by a plane but it has happened also.

If you want me to give you 2 examples of similar structures, how about the Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster PA or the McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago? The last one collapsed in less than 30 minutes after a small electrical fire.

A subsequent investigation found no fireproofing in the McCormick fire but fireproofing is designed not to save a building but prevent collapse long enough for evacuation. Go ask an architect. Add the fact that most of the fireproofing was dislodged on impact and we have similar issues.

What I am trying to show is that fire will weaken a steel structure until it does collapse and it has been documented.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Don't be fooled, folks....This guy does not care about the truth, he is what I would call a punk. Let me ask you a question, is this a game to you?

You actually compared these two steel structures to WTC 7? Stop wasting our time.




This is a picture of the new structure--**if anyone can find a photo of the old one please post**





Nothing to see here folks......




[edit on 16-7-2009 by OnTheFelt]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Whether the World Trade Center towers fell in 10 seconds or 15 seconds or 20 seconds, is irrelevant. It's 'near' enough to free fall speed that proves fires were not what caused them to fall out of the sky.

Think about it. 110 stories....

110 stories fell to the ground in 10 seconds? 110stories/10sec = 11 stories per second!!!! Imagine that in your head! How is that even possible, "due to" a fire on AT MOST a 10-15 story section of the building? I don't buy it

110stories/15sec = 7.3333 stories per second!!! That's still quite incredulous!!

110stories/20sec = 5.5 stories persecond!!!!

The "official" story is that the building "pancaked". Even in the best case, 110 stories pancaked in 20 seconds (which is not the case, it's actually more like 10-15 seconds, but LETS JUST SAY, for the sake of argument), we're supposed to believe that EACH story 'pancaked' onto itself in 0.18181818 seconds? What happened to the lower floors that weren't damaged by fires at all? You do the math.

EDIT: waiting for esdad71 to attack my computational skills...................

[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You can keep claiming it all you want, but fires have never brought down steel-structured highrises to this day. Nor have fires ever been able to accomplish what well-placed explosives have in all the years past:


Never in human history has anyone ever been able to successfully plant hidden controlled demolitions in an *occupied* building without any of the occupants noticing what was going on, either. Thus, your own standard of logic dismisses any possibility of explosives as well.

You are conveniently overlooking that small detail, I notice.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Umm I believe there was a report that stated that weeks prior to 9/11 the buildings where being swept by security teams, which was considered unusual. I however at this time have no evidence to back this up, nor do I have the time at this current moment to look it up. Sleep time for me.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


actually, no, we're not overlooking that fact because Stratesec (Securacom) was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, one of whose principals for the company is none other than Marvin P. Bush, George W. Bush's younger brother.

As far as occupants noticing anything fishy going on, look up Scott Forbes, who worked for the Fiduciary Trust, a tenant of the South Tower's 90, 94-97th floors. He noticed suspicious activities in the days and weeks leading to 9/11.

Lack of proof doesn't prove anything Just because you didn't look for/find the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there, nor that it didn't happen


[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]

[edit on 16-7-2009 by whateverYOUsayman]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You can keep claiming it all you want, but fires have never brought down steel-structured highrises to this day. Nor have fires ever been able to accomplish what well-placed explosives have in all the years past:


Never in human history has anyone ever been able to successfully plant hidden controlled demolitions in an *occupied* building without any of the occupants noticing what was going on, either. Thus, your own standard of logic dismisses any possibility of explosives as well.

You are conveniently overlooking that small detail, I notice.


This is just a stupid, stupid statement by you Dave. It's like me saying, in 1900:

Never in human history has anyone ever been able to fly airplanes.

Does that mean it's not possible to fly? We all know that's not the case because in 1903 the Wright Brothers did fly the skies in their glider.

You're logic/reasoning skills are twisted beyond imagination, yet you go and try to ridicule someone else's logic? Proof read your statements dumbass



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OnTheFelt
 


A punk? Nice.
I am sure if we were sitting at a bar you would not dare say that but behind a keyboard you are a man.
.Kind of like the guy that 'tells' you he is going to kick your butt...
you people are a riot....

I am not comparing buildings but I am comparing steel structures weakend by fire that led to a collapse. The WTC 1 and 2 were tube within tube design. Find 3 other buildings built like that. The WTC 7 was a building that was built upon another structure and the foundation was smaller than the width of the building so they used a truss design to support the upper floors.

If a 4 story building made of steel can collapse then it shows that if the lower part of a structure was weakened as in the WTC that is would not be able to support the top part of the structure and collapse as it did.

Also, security on 9/11 was not run by Bush's relative. Another farce. It was years previous he was involved but people still want to throw it around as fact..

However, your attempts to derail the thread are back so I ask the "King of all Punks"....what would you do if there was another investigation that returned the same results?


Stay on target...Stay on target...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join