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.

 

911 is joke in your town...CDI bought to make you cry

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by reesie45
Lol Funny video indeed! And wasnt Thermite found at the wtc site? Something used in demolitions? en.wikipedia.org...

No, they found paint. And thermite has never been used in demolitions, it is not reliable enough for the job.




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
the video is very short, yes I know you posted the full version

but, even I dont think this is that relevant ...

and I am more inclined to believe it was explosives than the planes



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Thanks for posting the clip, it was nice to see it again and I knew I would see it again. I had a feeling the first time I saw this on morning TV the CTers would probably dive on this slightly ambiguous comment.

Yep, I think it's certainly an odd comment to compare the steel beams that they are preparing to demolish to the World trade center beams. Did those beams in the WTC pose a problem for CDI too? Why would they say that if they had no experience of rigging the WTC beams for demolition?

Even knowing they were only officially involved with the clean up efforts I still think it's an odd thing to say when planning the demolition. Perhaps this is a rumour but I heard CDI were turned away early on from assisting in the clean up, which would make the comment even more bizarre.



[edit on 18-7-2010 by Insolubrious]


Thanks for your post Insolubrious.

As I said, I let people draw their own conclusion, but I, like yourself found the statement to be very odd coming from one of the Explosives Team members.

Funny, I just remembered that their was another video on the site where I found this at that had tape of someone walking around with a camera that morning close to the WTC before the planes had hit (as the story goes) and they were filming random things.

At the very end of the video a huge truck for loading stuff into is seen with the name of a "Demo" company on it. I can't remember the name of the company, but know that it was not CDI. I think it was Edmund's or something like that. Unfortunately I didn't get a rip of that.

Thanks again for your post and contribution.

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher

Originally posted by ypperst
Good video
I think there is no way jet fuel can rip worldtrade center like that way.

But I still dont really get why USA would do that on them self. Was it to get a reason to attack isreal?

Oh, if it is done by USA, how did they force osama bin laden to say in his video, that he did it?
Oh, is that why Laden maybe is still alive?


and is that a helicopter or a UFO in the skies in the start of the first building rip down.


The first thing Bin Laden said right after 9/11 is that he did NOT do it, He understood why someone would but that he and his group did not do it in a hour long typical OBL speech.

Later we have the fakes made by the CIA claiming to be OBL, claiming he did and you know the rest.


That is right...I forgot about that. Thank you for bringing that to mind. A friend of mine popped a tape in right after the first plane hit and recorded the whole day. I need to get up to see him, but he is about 8 hours away.

Thanks again for the reminder...

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The Regurgitation Continues!

There is a thread here at ATS Has 9/11 Truth Had it's Day?

This thread "911 is Joke in your town....."solidifies the fact that it has. This thread started off with an edited video that's last words were "smoke pot everyday"


Anyway, as the discussions started, so did the continued regurgitation of the fantasies. In this threads only 2 + pages we have had to once again sit through the following:

-squibs
-Jet fuel caused them to collapse
-steel into powder
-angle cuts on the I-beams
-asbestos problem at the WTC
-Silverstein
-Claims of a countdown on a Red Cross radio
-Fatty Bin Laden
-molten steel
-huge freakin airplane fit into that iddy biddy hole in the pentagon
-security of the WTC
-lack of video at the Pentagon

All completely debunked 2005, yet still being discussed. Same old same old!


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Six Sigma]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 




Here we go again at NO repeat NO point did anybody claim that only fire brought the towers down plain and simple.

A combination of structural damage , fire and load above impact point brought them down.



Hello wmd_2008

Sorry if I confused you. I thought everyone was aware of how the Jet Fuel got there and didn't think that needed to be said. I also thought everyone was aware that fire causes structural damage, so again, felt no need to say that.

Sorry again for the confusion.

Now, if we could just figure out the explosions we will all be on the same page.

Thanks again

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
The Regurgitation Continues!

There is a thread here at ATS Has 9/11 Truth Had it's Day?

This thread "911 is Joke in your town....."solidifies the fact that it has. This thread started off with an edited video that's last words were "smoke pot everyday"


Anyway, as the discussions started, so did the continued regurgitation of the fantasies. In this threads only 2 + pages we have had to once again sit through the following:

-squibs
-Jet fuel caused them to collapse
-steel into powder
-angle cuts on the I-beams
-asbestos problem at the WTC
-Silverstein
-Claims of a countdown on a Red Cross radio
-Fatty Bin Laden
-molten steel
-huge freakin airplane fit into that iddy biddy hole in the pentagon
-security of the WTC
-lack of video at the Pentagon

All completely debunked 2005, yet still being discussed. Same old same old!


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Six Sigma]


No, the last words were "Good is Dumb"

Have a nice day.

Peace



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Not much discussion can really come of the video at hand. It's a statement that is open to interpretation.

How you can actually say all of these things were debunked in 2005 I really don't know. Fatty Osama? It's not the same Osama, it's not hard to see. He has a different skin color and a different face, that, and he is fat.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sloppy

. Fatty Osama? It's not the same Osama, it's not hard to see. He has a different skin color and a different face, that, and he is fat.


What you are looking at is a grainy picture from a video. From the same video where the picture was obtained:



Looks like the same old scum bag to me!



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
No, the last words were "Good is Dumb"


The last words in the song were what?



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Yes indeed, LTRU, we must compare and note the differences...and the obvious ABSENCE of the types of sequential charged explosive sounds.

Per these two examples from your post, listen (and watch for the building's movements) very carefully, especialy with the building in Dallas, Texas.

KEEP IN MIND, also, whilst watching and listening, the differences in the speed of sound, and speed of light. Try to recall last time you watch an airborne fireworks display, for instance, to understand my point:


Third, if the "squib" like pops had not come from literal squibs, why would they pop like them? Why wouldn't whole floors burst out if there was so much pressure to cause that in the first place. What do you say about the Naudet Documentary with the firemen describing the sequenced "booms".



Compared too...



See it? Hear it? Now, once again, your question from above:


What do you say about the Naudet Documentary with the firemen describing the sequenced "booms".


It was mentioned (somewhere, another thread and I've forgotten, but it was recently) that there are TWO versions (or possibly more) of that clip, and others, floating about where sounds of explosions were ADDED IN by "conspiracy" hawkers....they, in order to "substantiate" their claims, and maybe sell more trinkets to the gulible, intentionally dubbed in sounds that were NOT on the original recordings.

However, even in the one above, NOTE carefully the timing of the sounds, as you watch...to me it looks exactly like the sounds are just what you'd expect to hear as the structure is collapsing...from the forces of the collapse, and the failures within and without as items are breaking.

Because, in the case of the WTC Towers (all three of them) there isn't a "BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM!!!" --- then a slight delay of a second or so, before the building begins to fall. (Keep in mind the speed of sound --- slower than light). Any "BAMs" are occuring during the phase of collapse.


~~~~~

To add: I've mentioned this before, many times...the influence of many, many visual media, (TV, film), has skewed people's sense of what they think some things should look and sound like...

Take a "disaster" movie, for instance...the soundtrack in the film ALWAYS ties the sounds of explosions, crashes, whatever to fit exactly with the action on the screen. No matter how far the "viewer" is from the object!!!

Same with "space battle" sequences --- nevermind that sound won't even carry in a vacuum, the sounds are there for IMPACT and DRAMA --- but when the DeathStar blows up, for example, in Star Wars there is NO time delay in what is presented to the audience, right?

Even though, in order for something as BIG ("a small moon") in size to be seen in one frame, the "distance" of the viewer would have to be on the order of thousands of miles away.

Can you see WHY people are being gullible about the events of 9/11? They, in some cases, aren't aware of how different reality is from what they've grown up with for most of their lives, since the ONLY previous examples of devastations on such a scale were from films and TV shows.





[edit on 18 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Uh? Don't know if your eyes need checking, or if your looking at something else, as the video below your last post bares no relevance whatsoever. The still, I am assuming comes from the confession tape of Osama, which is NOT him. I will be a bigot in this matter, as nothing you say to me is going to convince me they're one and the same.

You guys really are making me feel paranoid - It's not hard to see the difference, which leads me to conclude you have another agenda; posting random irrelevant videos and saying debunked in 05. Nah mate, no chance.

EDIT: I feel your right - I am helping derail the thread. Sorry OP. I wont stray off-topic again.

Back on topic: for those who say the high temperatures weakened the steel - I don't think anyone is unequivocally denying that. I'm not sure if the same applies to building seven though?

If you helped plan an attack like this, you would obviously have worked the maths out a million times before carrying out the job; maybe the 'thermite' or explosives helped make sure the buildings came down?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Sloppy]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
No, the last words were "Good is Dumb"


The last words in the song were what?


You didn't say the last words in the song, you said the last words in the video.

As to the song, he was talking about weeds you pull out of the ground....It's an ancient indigenous ceremony called "the smoking of the weeds" which his tribe apparently does every day from what I can gather.

But to heck with that, what about Little Superstar? I only put him in for a moment because, peoples heads tend to explode from the excitement he generates. I didn't want any fatalities on ATS, so I could only give you a taste. I know you wanted more, but I'm serious...you could injure yourself watching him. It's for the best I only gave you a snippet. You'll thank me later.

They should make a show with him called "Dancing with Little Superstar". I don't have a TV, but I'd probably have to buy one for that show. He can pop like no one I've ever seen.

Anyway, "May the Schwartz be with you....", but if not...see Blazing Saddles

Peace

[edit on 18-7-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pacific_waters
This is really getting tiring. Steel loses its structural integroty at around 800 degrees fahrenheit, well within the heat range of any jet fuel fire. Also the heat would have been exacerbated by the induction of oxygen as the heat created its own firestorm.


Yes it is getting tiring...

Do you understand heat transfer?

Just because a room fire might reach 800°C, or more, it doesn't mean the contents of the room are going to get that hot. It takes a lot of time for the heat to transfer to steel. Most of the steel was not in direct contact with the fires at all times. Heat wicks away along the length of the steel spreading the heat which effectively cools the spot being heated. One hour is not long enough to cause massive steel columns to fail from indirect uncontrolled fire.


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...
(and remember tests are done using the maximum possible extremes)

4 hours to reach 1093°C with a controlled test, and you think it got to 800°C in an hour from uncontrolled fire? And then you expect all the steel to be 800°C after an hour of indirect heat transfer?

And what amount of integrity does it lose? How much of the towers steel needed to be weakened for the whole thing to collapse? How did the fire cause the central structure to fail when supposedly according to NIST the floor trusses are what failed? How did the fire effect the lower structure it was not in contact with?

All building components are tested and need to hold at least twice their designed load holding, so if they were to lose 50% of their load bearing capacity they wouldn't fail. It's possible the towers had an even higher Fos, as it is common for buildings to have an Fos as high as 6, 2 is the minimum.


Factor of safety (FoS or FS) is a term describing the structural capacity of a system beyond the applied loads or actual loads. Essentially, how much stronger the system is than it needs to be for a given load. Safety factors are calculated because comprehensive destructive testing is impractical on many projects, such as bridges and buildings, or early in the design cycle but the structure's ability to carry load must be determined to a reasonable accuracy. So detailed analysis is used to examine the performance of the design....

Buildings commonly use a factor of safety of 2.0 for each structural member. The value for buildings is relatively low because the loads are well understood and most structures are redundant

en.wikipedia.org...

The amount of columns and bracing used is designed to be redundant. In other words if columns fail the load is redistributed to undamaged columns.

For your hypothesis to work ALL the columns, including the massive central core structure, would have had to be heated up well beyond 800°C. If only a few columns failed then other columns would take up the load. If failure did happen it would not be instant, symmetrical, or show no sign of resistance from undamaged structure. Failure from fire is slow, progressive and usually obvious.

NIST found most temps did not go over 250°C, and nothing over 600°C for any significant length of time, so there is no evidence to support your steel got to 800°C hypothesis. It's OK to speculate, but with the amount of evidence available it's not really necessary.


Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C...
...These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

74.6.146.127.../pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf&w=nist+no+num ber+steel+found+founding+over+250&d=DZi_a7ZfU-nq&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=1UI3UoWGiMEVPI1arMywoA--


Another Q for the OSers, if the steel didn't 'dustify', then where did the massive steel floor pans go?

[edit on 7/18/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sloppy
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Uh? Don't know if your eyes need checking, or if your looking at something else, as the video below your last post bares no relevance whatsoever. The still, I am assuming comes from the confession tape of Osama, which is NOT him. I will be a bigot in this matter, as nothing you say to me is going to convince me they're one and the same.

You guys really are making me feel paranoid - It's not hard to see the difference, which leads me to conclude you have another agenda; posting random irrelevant videos and saying debunked in 05. Nah mate, no chance.

EDIT: I feel your right - I am helping derail the thread. Sorry OP. I wont stray off-topic again.

Back on topic: for those who say the high temperatures weakened the steel - I don't think anyone is unequivocally denying that. I'm not sure if the same applies to building seven though?

If you helped plan an attack like this, you would obviously have worked the maths out a million times before carrying out the job; maybe the 'thermite' or explosives helped make sure the buildings came down?

[edit on 18-7-2010 by Sloppy]


Derail? Nope, you couldn't derail this, it's your forum...have at it. I didn't come here to change peoples minds. I just wanted to present the information. I've done that, and I'm happy.

If people can't see that arguing over this stuff goes no where, I'm perfectly happy letting them beat each other senseless. People want to be led, not lead and that is really what this fight is about. They are fighting because they don't want to lead themselves. 10 Generations ago you were a million different people....now you are one. Faith got you here, the faith of your ancestors. We shame them fighting over this crap with one another.

I'm responsible for the trade center coming down. It happened on my watch and I owe it to the world to do better. People can make up bad men all day long and play the he said she said. I'm not doing it anymore, I refuse and if people don't like that....I could care less.

If people want the truth, if they want to catch the culprit, they need to look in the mirror and stop making excuses. Stop fighting to change other peoples minds and make up your own in peace I say.

I know what I've seen, and I know what I haven't seen and if you're wondering, no "I've never seen a man eat his own head."...Team America


No disrespect, I just won't do it anymore, the endless arguing. It's fruitless, exhausting and not worth even one breath of fresh air.

"This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time"...Fight Club

Peace



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey Weedwhacker nice to see you and thanks for your posts here.

I wasn't talking about the sound necessarily from the Naudet film, I was asking about the firemen in the documentary and what they described hearing as they were running from the building.

Do you believe they are proficient enough in knowing the difference between fire caused explosions (ex. propane tanks, gas lines etc) verses sequenced detonations?

From the Film:

Firefighter #1 "What did we do? We made it outside? We made it about a block?"

Firefighter #2 "We made it at least two blocks and...we started running"

Firefighter #1 "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom," Motioning with his hand from top to bottom in rapid succession

Firefighter #2 "Floor by floor it started popping out" motioning with his hand from top to bottom successively

Firefighter #1 "It was like, it was if...if they had detonate"

Firefighter #2 "Yeah detonated it yeah"

Firefighter #1 "It was if they had planned to take down a building" motioning with his hand again from top to bottom in rapid succession "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom boom"

Firefighter #2 "Yeah all the way down, I was watching it...and running"


Sound being added in to the movie wouldn't change the testimony of the firemen on the scene, so I think it is a simple case of deduction using witness testimony to determine wither or not sound was added in after the fact.

They described what you see, which is a demo wave from top to bottom in rapid fire succession and this entirely fits the description of what is heard in the footage you are calling into question, let alone the 4 or 5 other examples that I listed along with comparative footage of staged demolition.

If we can't take their word as professionals, why would we be able to take yours?

Remember also, that the testimony given in this film was given long before a "truth" movement had even started. These men were simply recalling what they had witnessed fittingly at "Ground Zero".

So again I ask you, are these men proficient enough to know what they are talking about having witnessed it, not on television, but firsthand?

Thanks again

Peace



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Many structural items under failure will make plenty of noise for example when concrete is heated the surface layer will pop of due to the heat and the expansion of water in the concrete and can sound like gun fire.

Then when structural fixings collapse they will also make lots of noise then we have the collapsing floors, internal staircases etc the list goes on!



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Have a look at this graph re steel and temperature

www.elephantowners.com...

at about 1200f ONLY 600c look at the strength, about 0.3 its lost
70%!

I think people get confused when f and c are used in different documents thats the real problem.

Already damaged steel weakend by fire then massive loads above impact point!

Also your FOS are WAY OUT for structural fixings most engineers allow a fos of 3 not 6
as you claim even your link tells you 2 but as usual with you guys lets distort things by claiming this is a minimum!



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Good post man, agree with what your saying. There are many unanswered questions about the collapse of three towers that day.

I can accpet that some steel strength would be lost a hot spots on some floors, but that doesn't mean the whole structure should just give up and fall down.

Also I read before that massive steel beams were found 100's of yards away on the roofs of other buildings or stuck into the sides of them.

What would cause that to happen if the structure had simply fallen down ?

..... let me guess, I'm living in cloud cuckoo land, that didn't happen, all been debunked, just sit quietly and go back to sleep.



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Now, THIS is why the conspiracy theorists are getting nowhere with their conspiracy stories."

So, you obviously have made a career out of responding and rebutting people who are getting nowhere. What does that say about you?


Franly, I don't care what it says about me. All I care aboit is if anyone can show why anything I ever post here is incorrect. I notice that despite your bluster...


-"You hear that folks? The Government investigated itself and came up with an objective, non-biased conclusion. So do them a favor and believe them, will ya?"

-"Cue the sappy violin music."

-"Yep. I hear selling t-shirts, baseball caps and DVDs even rivals the income one can make from selling fake wars."


...you haven't shown a single thing that I've said to be incorrect. Why DO the truthers insist that the NIST report is all alie when they've never even read the thing to know what the lie even is? Where IS this supposed dustification of steel claim coming from when there were piles of steel lying all over the place? Where WERE the flashes from these supposed explosives that destroyed the towers? If you don't agree with the 9/11 commission report then it becomes your responsibility to provide an answer that better fits the facts, but your scenario sounds even more goofball than the one you're attempting to refute. Do you even care that you have so many glaring problems in your account?

I'm sorry, but "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on me.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join