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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
"The towers did not only collapse they pulverized THEMSELVES as the collapse wave moved the building through the path of most resistance.

As evidenced by the rubble pile, which was only about one fourth the height it should have been if it was a pancake collapse, as alleged.

"The collapses were 'controlled'."

With explosives which literally reduced very strong construction components and office materials to particles of fine dust.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


The "fine dust" was the tons of drywall that got crushed, including SOME of the concrete. Most of it was found stacked up at the base, concrete/trusses/furniture and all. And no, explosives do not turn things into powder. Demo charges sure as hell dont. Nuclear devices yes probably. Conventional explosives? No way. Unless you packed the building with nearly a megaton of conventional explosives.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 




With explosives which literally reduced very strong construction components and office materials to particles of fine dust.


What type of explosives and then, the 10,000 dollar question...where is ONE piece of physical evidence?

I mean, If they can find flea fart residue on CSI I am sure there would be ONE piece of material from the explosives accelerant or means of detonation.


You see however, then we are getting away from what we are talking about in the OP unless you want to bring into the mix the fact someone tried to bring it down from the bottom up and then they decided to try to push/knock them over and got lucky with the ensuing fire.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by GenRadek


It doesnt need to have every steel part heated to failure. As it has been seen before, total destruction of a structure can occur with the failure of just a few bolts or plates or beam.


And before 911 , which building have we "seen before" fall this way.

I missed that link I guess


Refresh my memory, when in history did a fully fueled 767 slam into a 100+ story building at speeds above 400mph, causing the building to burn over numerous floors with zero firefighting for nearly an hour? yeah too bad we dont have an example before 9/11 to compare it to.

Well there have been other structural failures of bridges, and other structures where key components failed causing complete destruction.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
The Construction Manager said they could survive MULTIPLE planes
hitting them.


What makes you think he would know? You do know what his job entailed, dont you?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


General, no bridges fell on 911

but a building did, that never had a plane hit it



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Sean48
The Construction Manager said they could survive MULTIPLE planes
hitting them.


What makes you think he would know? You do know what his job entailed, dont you?


well, between yours , mine and his opinions.

I'd go with his.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Ah did you forget the impact of debris from one tower and the resulting 7 hours of fires that went on without a drop of water to fight it?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


You should have more confidence in yourself to make an informed decision instead of taking something that someone else says at face value. Just a little advice.

What was he supposed to say, that he is screwed if anything happens? I am sure that somewhere he heard that if a plane hit the towers it would be OK because I am sure that the conversation occurred in multiple forums of people drinking and talking about what ifs?

However, where you are engineering something sometimes the limits are never tested and you would never know if there were flaws unless tested. In this case, they were and AGAIN, the buildings stood long enough for evacuation which is all it is meant to do.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Ah did you forget the impact of debris from one tower and the resulting 7 hours of fires that went on without a drop of water to fight it?


Didn't forget it .

Lets see , this building had Building 1 fall on it

Hull of a airplane fall on it

Total Engulfed Fire

Didn't collapse. Enjoy the Show



[edit on 3-1-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
What type of explosives and then, the 10,000 dollar question...where is ONE piece of physical evidence?


It could very well have been done with the "verinage" technique.

It uses hydraulics to pull the columns of one floor out of alignment to cause a top down demolition. It's amazing that the NIST hypothesis is generally the same......only NIST says that flimsy trusses pulled in the outer columns instead of hydraulics.



Where they looking for hydraulics in the rubble piles?

Oh, BTW, this video totally refutes the "expert" from one of the controlled demolitions companies who stated that the WTC couldn't be a demolition because there has never been a topdown demolition before.

And it also goes along with the reports of "heavy machinery" being moved around on those floors in the days prior to 9/11.

Enjoy


[edit on 3-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I'd almost swear someone in this forum created the steel core with his own bare hands. At the end of the video of WTC #2 if you stop the play it is plainly visible the remnants of the core are the last things to fall ! Do you think that this 110 story core would stand on its own ? I think a 5 mph wind would take it down. It is also conceivable that more than 100 dampers separated with the incredible force of the impact, especially on that side and as far as 6 stories away and some on the other side when the building reflexed, along with many bolts and weldments. What would be the force of all the material above impact falling the distance of two stories ? A piece of ice gashed the steel hull of the Titanic, I guess a plane would have bounced off leaving a black mark. The task of taking engineering specs and constructing a match to perfection is huge !! So many different contractors, pre-fabs, hardware. Modifications were made even after completion including cutting openings in floors to connect spaces by stairs etc... I think lessons should be learned from this and improved for future projects. Unless one feels these designs were perfect.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

It could very well have been done with the "verinage" technique.


Can you tell us when exactly this technique was developed??
When did it begin to be used for demolition??



Where they looking for hydraulics in the rubble piles?


How many, and how massive would these hydraulics be??
How much time and how many people would have been needed to install this hydraulics without being noticed or suspicious??



Oh, BTW, this video totally refutes the "expert" from one of the controlled demolitions companies who stated that the WTC couldn't be a demolition because there has never been a topdown demolition before.


Was this a false statement at the time he said it??
It´s been 8 years you know?? So, maybe at the time he was right.



And it also goes along with the reports of "heavy machinery" being moved around on those floors in the days prior to 9/11.


What floors are you refferring to exactly, please??




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
Can you tell us when exactly this technique was developed??
When did it begin to be used for demolition??


I can't seem to find when it was first implimented. Let me ask you. If it is after 9/11 does that mean the WTC couldn't have been the same technique?



How many, and how massive would these hydraulics be??
How much time and how many people would have been needed to install this hydraulics without being noticed or suspicious??


There are reports of "heavy machinery" being moved around at the impact locations. These floors were locked to all but a few.

Also, there were Israeli artists living in the WTC without anyone noticing.




Was this a false statement at the time he said it??
It´s been 8 years you know?? So, maybe at the time he was right.


There were topdown demolitions in existence when the statement was made.



What floors are you refferring to exactly, please??


The impact floors I believe.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
There are reports of "heavy machinery" being moved around at the impact locations. These floors were locked to all but a few.


What reports? Source?
What floors were locked, when and who was barred from them?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I believe Rodriguez reported it from the 34th floor. Also, the guy who claims that a third of one building's power was out the weekend before claims he heard it on the upper floors. I can't remember his name or I'd look up his testimony.

I see where you are going with this. But, be advised I am going to come back with "If you sever (misalign) the core at any part of the building...i.e. weaken the core to the point it is of no use, then the exterior will fail at it's weakest point. The Impact floors."



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Computer hickup.

Deleted DP.




[edit on 4-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





Also, the guy who claims that a third of one building's power was out the weekend before claims he heard it on the upper floors. I can't remember his name or I'd look up his testimony.


That would be Scott Forbes. And his story has changed from the tower he works in being powered down from floor 50 to the top 36 hours...to the (90-92) floors he worked on to the top...to just the floors his company occupied being powered down for the 36 hours....to his floors being powered down for 26 hours. And to date, no one else has corroborated any of his stories.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 





There are reports of "heavy machinery" being moved around at the impact locations. These floors were locked to all but a few


Really? Thats interesting because the Fiji Bank had offices in the impact area of the South Tower..and they were open for business that Tuesday....




"I'm trembling and I'm crying, 'Lord, don't leave me here to die!' And I realize that I'm covered with debris when I try to get up," he said. "Peeking through the rubble, all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was


archives.cnn.com...

Doesnt sound like there were a bunch of locked offices in the impact area.....

Sidenote...the initial impact of the airliner's fuselage on that tower was Fiji Bank's computer room...full of UPS' for the computers and most likely cause of the "molten" metal seen running from that part of the building.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
OK. I thought I had seen it all.
BOY WAS I WRONG !!!
I have to admit, there will come "new" theories on 9/11 all the time.

NEW THEORY:

"Special hydraulics" technology, which was installed secretly (by israely secret agents possing as art students), IN THE SPECIFIC FLOORS that were to be hit by the hijacked airliners.

Nutter; please explain:

1.-) Why was it decided to apply this new technology at different heights in each tower??

2.-) How was it that the planes hit exactly at the floors were the hidraulics were previously installed??

3.-) How come the hydraulics equipment wasn´t damaged or rendered not operational after the crash and fires??

Now, not everything is a waste. The videos of the "verinage" technique actually demonstrate one thing the "truthers" have been claiming impossible:

That a big enough top portion of a building will have enough destructive force to take out the lower portion of same building.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by rush969]

[edit on 4-1-2010 by rush969]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join