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: 22
16
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


You are wrong. DeMartini was hired after the 93 bombings to assist with reconstruction but was NOT part of the original construction team.


Not you too? Now you are twisting my facts around You and dereks need to go and play in kiddy land and leave the mature adults alone with your games of twisting information around.


Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.


911research.wtc7.net...

I posted in my above link that DeMartini was hired after the 93 bombings. You obviously have over looked my posts where I referred to this information.

Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that if you are looking to discrediting me.

Continue on with your tag team.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by impressme]




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I have to chuckle at your ignorance and futile attempts to defend the OS. You cannot emotionally handle the facts that prove the OS to be nothing but lies. Even members of the 911 Commission came out and admitted their report was full of lies...


Sep-11-2009 23:46
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
Gordon Duff Salem-News.com
How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?


John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."



www.salem-news.com...

Stop attacking the posters on ATS presenting the truth. Instead of these guys rocking your world with the sad facts of 911, maybe you need your momma to rock your crib while you absorb the truth a little bit at a time.


[edit on 1/10/2010 by Sanity]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Sanity
 


Nice name

We truthers in these threads enjoy messing with the OS people.

We don't bring up "Able Danger" or Bush's Aug 6 pdf.

That would take the fun outta it.

There are too many more , that would close these threads as the

OS peeps wold run.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Where does it say that I wrote 11 and 14 year old children built the WTC?

where you claimed Frank was the builder, but you "forgot" that he was only 14 when it was built


Next, you will be saying he had an office of his own in the WTC at the age of 14, get real!

Romper room tactics are for kiddies, try and do some real research into the subject before making a fool out of yourself.


Truthers tell so many lies they get very confused!


How is telling the Truth a lie? Talk about being confused.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
How is telling the Truth a lie?


Truthers do not tell the truth, they avoid it and make up stories like invisible ninjas installing invisible explosives in the WTC, missile firing aircraft bringing down the WTC, beam weapons from space bringing down the WTC, mini nukes used to bring down the WTC, thousands of USAF personel involved in bringing down the WTC etc etc.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


How is telling the Truth a lie?

Truthers do not tell the truth, they avoid it and make up stories like invisible ninjas installing invisible explosives in the WTC, missile firing aircraft bringing down the WTC, beam weapons from space bringing down the WTC, mini nukes used to bring down the WTC, thousands of USAF personel involved in bringing down the WTC etc etc.


Then I wouldn’t be calling people who make up lies, Truthers!

Where’s the logic in that?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by impressme
How is telling the Truth a lie?


Truthers do not tell the truth, they avoid it and make up stories like invisible ninjas installing invisible explosives in the WTC, missile firing aircraft bringing down the WTC, beam weapons from space bringing down the WTC, mini nukes used to bring down the WTC, thousands of USAF personel involved in bringing down the WTC etc etc.


Then what is it you would say "OS"ers are doing. I have been called a truther all over ATS and yet I have never endorsed or even entertained any of the ideas listed in that post. So...am I not a truther and OSers just like to call everyone that and they are all really a cabal of mini nuke pushing psychos or what?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Reminder:

Any inappropriate comments, insults, topic derailment, or trolling will result in immediate posting ban or account termination.

Please review the 9/11 madness thread.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 




Please, bring these into another thread. Able Danger as well as the fact that we did not kill OBL after the Cole bombing is something that rubs me the wrong way but did not lead to 9/11.

Try to post something that would make an OS'er run, it will be a treat to see you try to put together some concrete sentences with your own thoughts based on some research into of just a cut and paste.

Alos, telling me that I cannot emotionally handle it is funny. It would seem ot me that those who cannot accept that we were attacked on 9/11 are in some extreme denial and to help them understand they create scenarios of what THEY think happened and it perpetuates to what you would consider truth.

How many of you actually 'read' the 9/11 commission report if for nothing else to learn what was in play that day? Anyone? I am sure you will all say 'it is garbage or it is lies' but if you took the time to read it with open eyes you just may look at this differently.

quoting Rense, prisonplanet, wtc7 research or any number of the other anti OS sites will not educate you. I have read everything on their sites and it is a good laugh. I like Rense for his UFO stuff.

Read a book, get off the internet and maybe you to can be enlightened.

Now, do you have anything to add to the OS thread now that I have let you know where I am at?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
It is important to consider the "tube in a tube" design of the towers. This design in itself controls the falling debris and helps to correct the initial tilt at failure. As the debris fall downward it fills the inner and outer tubes to the point of bulging. This creates an outward force from the center of the buildings to the exterior. There is nothing in the designs that were to resist any such force. Period ! So the outward force became too much for the 5/8" bolts and weldments to withstand. The exterior of course the first to fail because the inner tube was supported by the debris held in by the exterior wall. When the exterior begins to fail and peel away exposing the core the bulging core then bursts outward. This is why the exterior came off in full sections with no apparent damage from a downward force. They were pushed out by the debris filling the inner cavities. A couple of floors fail at the exterior then at the core, then the exterior and then the core. Industry uses this tube in tube or symetrical core designs in many ways to control even disentigration



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by the eyes have it !!
 


I doubt you'll be getting a lot of agreement here on your analysis but you have mine at least


You need to remember that it's a conspiracy forum and suggesting anything that detracts from conspiracies is treated like heresy


The only components of WTC1 & 2 available to oppose a vertical collapse, once in motion, were the floors and compared to the vertical columns they weren't very strong at all being just 100mm of concrete laid on corrugated iron supported by trusses. Even then the major points of failure appeared to be the bolts and welds as you say as the trusses sheared the bolts attaching them to the seats on those vertical columns. Without the floors to stabilise the columns (inner and outer) they simply buckled or broke their welded/bolted joints and fell.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Again if that had happened like you say, why did most of the debris end up outside of the footprint? Where is the pile of floors that fell on top of each other?

This shows that debris was ejected outwards, which means it could not have contributed to crushing lower floors.

And your assumption that the floors were not secured strongly enough to hold them is just ridiculous.

Then you have the fact that floors on WTC2 did not fall straight down, they were tilting at a large angle, how did they crush floors symmetrically?

It takes a force of equal power on all points of an object for it to fall though the path of most resistance symmetrically. Any RESISTANCE (remember that word) on any part of the system and you will get deflection and change in momentum causing the object to lose it's symmetry. Yet the collapses stayed symmetrical throughout the collapse. The top of WTC2 was not sitting symmetrically, it was already tilting through the path of least resistance, it could not provide equal, symmetrical downward force. All it's force was going through angular momentum, which once started cannot be stopped unless acted on by an outside force.

[edit on 1/23/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sanity
 


Except, that Mr. Duff has taken Mr Farmer completely out of context as discussed on another thread.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Thus is the theory of when an immovable opinion collides with an indestructable logic. I am undecided as to exactly who was ultimatly behind the planes but I've yet to see any real evidence to any explosives or such to lead to the collapse.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by the eyes have it !!
 


So what? We know the evidence is out there, you just don't understand it.

Learn about thermal energy and how it transfers between objects, then learn some basic physics, and you might find the evidence you claim to be looking for. (c'mon you haven't looked have you? You want it spoon fed to you because you refuse to do anything but believe the OS. You don't understand the physics involved, and I suspect you don't care because in your arrogance you think the OS is correct, so why try to understand what these loony 'truthers' are saying? If you do understand then explain how thermal energy is transferred and how it would work in the context of a steel building, and prove it. But I guess I've already been labeled unstable for my views, so regardless of whether what I say is correct it's gonna be suspect in your closed little minds, ignored, and it's back to space beams and pods).



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by the eyes have it !!
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Thus is the theory of when an immovable opinion collides with an indestructable logic. I am undecided as to exactly who was ultimatly behind the planes but I've yet to see any real evidence to any explosives or such to lead to the collapse.


What evidence have you seen that the plane crashes should lead to the collapse?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And your assumption that the floors were not secured strongly enough to hold them is just ridiculous.


The floors were definitely secured well enough to support themselves and were claimed to be strong enough individually to hold the mass of something like 10 or 11 floors as a static load (just going on memory here) but that mass is not inclusive of the vertical components (core columns and perimeter columns). All the floors were designed to safely hold only themselves in position, they did not support the mass of the building in any way except to connect the core to the outer walls. All of the floors were exactly the same strength from top to bottom of the towers with the exception of the few 'mechanical' floors.

Something like 10-20% of the building's total mass including core and outer wall components came crashing through those floors with the outer walls holding up just long enough to guide the collapse, then peeling out and away above the collapse wave because they were no longer connected to the core for stability.

What was holding each floor in position apart from the truss seats and 2 bolts at each end of each truss?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum


Do I have to talk about WTC2 again?

It completely debunks your idea of floors crashing on floors.

I've explained this a thousand times, you obviously didn't pay any attention, ignored it, or don't understand it.

The top was tilting, it's impossible for it to have changed it's mind from it's angular momentum and path of least resistance, and decide to take the path of most resistance (without an external unbalanced force acting on it). That was NOT a natural occurrence, it contradicted basic Newtonian physics and no one has yet to prove Newton was wrong. The top was not sitting true on all for corners so how can it cause all four corners to fall at the same rate? The top could not have crushed floors symmetrically, and completely, without a single sign of resistance causing a slowing or asymmetrical component to the collapses. You are expecting a symmetrical collapse from a chaotic event. Impossible.

If you want it in detail go here...www.abovetopsecret.com...

You all keep coming back to this same BS without taking into account any of the points I bring up. You have yet to post a SINGLE thing that contradicts what I say. I don't know why I bother cause you'll still post the same BS won't you?

BTW can you explain thermal energy and how it's transferred, I've asked everyone else and they keep ignoring the question, how bout you the self claimed expert, how did the fires manage to transfer enough thermal energy to the steel in an hour to cause failure? And why can't we do that to steel in a lab? Try it yourself at home, you might learn something...

[edit on 1/26/2010 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join