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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by pshea38
 


To be quite honest, the color content and vantage points are such that it seems obvious that those were two separate photographers. The guy would have had to have jogged to the left to get where the picture is taken on the later photo, and the quality difference is huge, so I can't see how you can claim both were by the same guy.


i enlarged the first picture but couldn't enlarge the second(check the link). they are from the same camera, taken consecutively. maybe i should reduce the first back down, for clarity.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And thus you'd rather ignore numerous witness' testimonies based on your denial and ignorance? Just because they weren't caught on video makes the witness testimony moot? How many murderers have been convicted on witness testimony with no murder weapon produced?

Some of the huge booms were recorded in "9/11 Eyewitness" from 2 miles away with firefighter testimony corroborating the video:




Yes, it does make it moot. There is NO other evidence to support this. No physical evidence, no recorded evidence, nothing.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There's nothing "unique" about a fire-induced collapse.


Really? So this type of fire occurs often? Meaning severe fires started instantly over many floors with THOUSANDS of gallons of accelerant? Really?




Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Either it will show signs of being a fire-induced collapse, or it won't.


No always, but most of the time there will be signs.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And the evidence shows that WTC did not exhibit the characteristics of a fire-induced collapse.


Maybe you can list some of the signs of a fire induced collapse.

I'll give you a hint.

There are many of them.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm starting to question the claims of you even being a firefighter with your lack of knowledge of firefighting.


Maybe it's because you are basing that opinion on your own ignorance?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Was somebody pumping pure oxygen into the fires? Then the fires didn't come close to max temperature.


Did you google "Chimney effect" or "stack effect" yet? It explains why this fire was NOT oxygen starved. Also remember the huge ****** holes in the side of the buildings.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Is that so? Then tell everyone why controlled demolition companies don't use fire to bring steel-structured buildings down


Too many variables.
Wind speed
Direction
Constant or variable wind speed/direction
Ventilation upwind or downwind.
Time
Material being used as fuel
humidity
Amount of ventilation.
Type of structe

These are ALL major variables that would need to be taken into account to use fire as a form of CD.

Most of these variables you cannot account for.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
.Or even call a controlled demolition company and ask them why they don't use fire and listen to them tell you how impossible it is.


I don't need to. I know why they dont used fire as a form of CD.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yes, there will be a localized, partial collapse in the fire zone. No, absolutely not will there be a full and complete collapse to the ground of any steel-structured highrise, ever.


Argument from personal ignorance noted.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Every trained firefighter will know this most basic information.


Yep. Start asking irefighters how many times steel structures have collapsed. Then ask them if they feel safe entering one that is fully involved.

Let us know how that works out for you.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Unless certain firefighters are not properly trained and only volunteers on some small-town department.



Do some reasearch, record your calls, and see what you find. REport back to us.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It's not a problem. That boom that was heard in the basement destroyed a machine shop, parking garage, a 300-pound fire door, and heavily damaged the lobby. This sounds more like a problem you can't resolve as you have to admit explosives did the heavy damage seen in the basement levels and the lobby.


Nope. Fuel-air explosions would most certainly do that type of damage.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
So, you are again calling these trained and experienced firefighters liars? Go tell them they don't know what they're talking about. I want to hear their response.


No, I am saying that there is no way for them to be able to tell the difference between molten steel and tin, lead, aluminum, aluminum bronze, magnesium, etc. Alll melt at or below 1500 deg. F.

Can you tell the difference? Firefighters are NOT trained in metalurgy. Hell, call a metalurgist and ask them if they can do it.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Max1009
I distinctly remember from multipile documentaries that every once in a while falling debris and especially falling people would create enourmously loud bangs once they hit the pavement.

Yeah, but not recordable from 2 miles away.



Originally posted by Max1009
That the booms aren't documented on video makes it all very sceptical though, you have to admit,

Not true. Most of the cameras used likely could not record the frequency of the booms. Not to mention that almost every video from close-up has had the sound drowned out by loud city noise and the loud roar of the buildings collapsing.

Are you seriously willing to discount numerous first responders, by-standers, and survivors that heard the timed/synchronous booms, all because you can't hear it in the videos? Really?

There are a whole lot of people in prison for crimes that were based in good part by witness testimony, all without even needing a murder weapon or even in some cases, a body.



So, you think that the building collapsing covered up the booms? Horse****. Go google decibel comparisons, and tell me what you find.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Max1009
Also, planting controlled demolitions in the WTC sufficient to bring the entire building down, would have taken many months.

Yes, or more slowly over a several-year period.


Uhhh....BoneZ? You do realise that explosives have a finite useful life-span? A best-before date if you will? So how many years are you positing such a patient wire-up would take to do the entirety of both buildings?


Excellent point. And it's measured with a clock, not a calender.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The CORE COLUMNS were connected by HORIZONTAL BEAMS

Not just horizontally. The core columns were connected horizontally, vertically, and in some places diagonally. The cores were fortresses and nearly indestructible.


You know, except for those lateral loads.....



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?


Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.


It's an analogy. Way to miss the point though!


You trusters are the first to point out any analogy that isn't directly comparable.
This analogy fails in every way.
Shame on you..you know better, but still stoop to such levels.
I guess that happens when running out of arguments.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

Yep, now, do the math for the kinetic energy involved in the impact, and do the math for the heat energy released by the fuel, and then the heat energy for the resulting fires.

Hell, a bullet weighs about .25 ounces. Most people weigh about 140 lbs. Which translates to 2240 ounces.

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?


Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.




Do you have any inkling as to why your 'analogy' is wildly off the mark? Are you actually suggesting that a human body and the WTCs bear any kind of structural or internal comparisons? You do realise that the WTCs were essentially hollow just as human bodies aren't? Is this as good as 'truther' arguments get?


Thats hilarious.
You question the fact if this is as 'good as the truther arguments get', but completely FAIL to realize that a fellow 'truster', brought forth this particular analogy to begin with.

Genuinely classic. Im bookmarking this one for 'idiocy'.

EDIT: My fault...It wasn't a fellow 'truster', it was YOU!

edit on 15-2-2011 by DIDtm because: mentioned



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You tell us where it went then, that large chunk that has fallen so far to the side, it vanished into dust as it fell, as did the rest of the towers, incredibly just literally vaporized.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Are you blind if you actually look at the photo you posted the bulk of the cross bracing is THE TOWER CRANES


Here is a better view

911research.wtc7.net...

SEE!!!

Here is YOUR CARFULLY SELECTED IMAGE to hide what the cross bracing is on.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

When you claim something at least be HONEST!
edit on 15-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: statement and pic added.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by wmd_2008
FFS even when bolts fail they they make noise never mind structural steel sections!!!!!!!!

And FFS, you're not going to hear bolts fail or structural steel sections failing at 2 miles away. Laugh at that.



You deaf as well!
You CLAIM to have some consruction KNOWLEDGE did you see the video that ww posted of the crane failing or you really claiming that you would not have heard the noise of 1000's of tons of steell and conctrete falling! when its falling its failed as its supposed to stay in position

edit on 15-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: missing word



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia
 


You tell us where it went then, that large chunk that has fallen so far to the side, it vanished into dust as it fell, as did the rest of the towers, incredibly just literally vaporized.


Well if you watch the video you will see thats BS You cant see for the dust the bulk of which was SHEETROCK dust unless of course you think that wouldn't have vaporized as you put it,1000's of sq mtrs of sheetrock in those buildings so what DO YOU think would have happened to that!!!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uhhh....BoneZ? You do realise that explosives have a finite useful life-span? A best-before date if you will? So how many years are you positing such a patient wire-up would take to do the entirety of both buildings?


Excellent point. And it's measured with a clock, not a calender.


I don't know what you think you're talking about but even common Semtex used to be manufactured with a shelf-life of 10 years.


Also in response to international agreements, Semtex has a detection taggant added to produce a distinctive vapor signature to aid detection. First, ethylene glycol dinitrate was used, later switched to 2,3-dinitro-2,3-dimethylbutane (3,4-dinitrohexane, DMDNB) or p-mononitrotoluene, which is used currently. According to the manufacturer, the taggant agent was voluntarily being added by 1991, years before the protocol signed became compulsory.[4] Batches of Semtex made before 1990, however, are untagged, though it is not known whether there are still major stocks of such old batches of Semtex. The shelf life of Semtex was reduced from 10 years before the 1990s to five years now. Explosia states that there is no compulsory tagging allowing reliable post-detonation detection of a certain plastic explosive (such as incorporating a unique metallic code into the mass of the explosive), so Semtex is not tagged in this way.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...


There it tells you that not only can Semtex have a shelf-life of at least 10 years, but before 1990 they didn't even tag it with chemicals that would allow bomb-sniffing dogs to recognize it. And that [7] at the end, is the source: www.explosia.cz...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Another person with a lack of knowledge re photography lets see DO you have a link to the original pics?

Will be on later off to earn some money.

By the way WHAT yellow bin?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by pshea38
 


Another person with a lack of knowledge re photography lets see DO you have a link to the original pics?

Will be on later off to earn some money.

By the way WHAT yellow bin?


here is the link

i think, by the colour similarities of clear sky, and the man with the white shirt and brown shorts, in both pictures, that it is very likely that both photographs were taken from the same camera. this would mean that the photographer would have had to have run 20-30? yards to his left (judging by the new relative positioning of the man with white shirt) in 1-3? seconds (judging by the distance the top of the spire has fallen and the dust dispersal and coverage). please explain why the man with the white shirt and brown shorts has a huge wedge missing from the side of his head (zoom required) and the building opposite is seen through this gap. also please explain the impossible positioning of the same mans right hand behind his head in picture1 (zoom required), with his thumb above his fingers, when it should and could only be below.

p.s. i mistook the yellow boat on the river for a large yellow trashbin.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

i think, by the colour similarities of clear sky, and the man with the white shirt and brown shorts, in both pictures, that it is very likely that both photographs were taken from the same camera. this would mean that the photographer would have had to have run 20-30? yards to his left (judging by the new relative positioning of the man with white shirt) in 1-3? seconds (judging by the distance the top of the spire has fallen and the dust dispersal and coverage). please explain why the man with the white shirt and brown shorts has a huge wedge missing from the side of his head (zoom required) and the building opposite is seen through this gap. also please explain the impossible positioning of the same mans right hand behind his head in picture1 (zoom required), with his thumb above his fingers, when it should and could only be below.

p.s. i mistook the yellow boat on the river for a large yellow trashbin.


The person taking the pictures, if it is the same one, wouldnt have had to run anywhere.
From the location of the guy in the picture to the lamp post, the yellow barge in the river and difference in cars...along with the vantage point of the buildings....it is clear that some of the objects in the picture were super imposed.
Why is it that no one can see this?
It sticks out like a bear in a church to me.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by pshea38

i think, by the colour similarities of clear sky, and the man with the white shirt and brown shorts, in both pictures, that it is very likely that both photographs were taken from the same camera. this would mean that the photographer would have had to have run 20-30? yards to his left (judging by the new relative positioning of the man with white shirt) in 1-3? seconds (judging by the distance the top of the spire has fallen and the dust dispersal and coverage). please explain why the man with the white shirt and brown shorts has a huge wedge missing from the side of his head (zoom required) and the building opposite is seen through this gap. also please explain the impossible positioning of the same mans right hand behind his head in picture1 (zoom required), with his thumb above his fingers, when it should and could only be below.

p.s. i mistook the yellow boat on the river for a large yellow trashbin.


The person taking the pictures, if it is the same one, wouldnt have had to run anywhere.
From the location of the guy in the picture to the lamp post, the yellow barge in the river and difference in cars...along with the vantage point of the buildings....it is clear that some of the objects in the picture were super imposed.
Why is it that no one can see this?
It sticks out like a bear in a church to me.


that was exactly my point, that there was fakery involved. i opened a thread on this but most people are not seeing fakery, maintaining that there are two different photographers, one photographer changing position etc. i didn't see it that way. same photographer, same position-just zoomed out - so there had to have been fakery.
my thread- if one photograph from 9/11 is faked, why not all? the point in introducing the photograph here was to indicate that all this time spent investigating the tower collapses could just have been time investigating faked images, rendering any and all scientific analysis inconclusive, explaining why there is so much ongoing confusion and disagreement regarding the causes and mechanisms of the collapses.

cheers.
edit on 15-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Had a look at the link, ok at the position of the guy with shorts white shirt and a stap on his shoulder look at his position in both pictures the photographer may have zoomed but would be good to get camera lens info or to get exif data to find out if pictures are cropped.

He is on the right side of the picture with the police suv he is central in the other the photographer has moved/zoomed during the pictures no fakery.

I mean if you confused the boat with a bin that shows how you are getting to carried away with your theories to see what is actually in front of you.!!!!!!!

edit on 15-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: looked at link again altered text



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by DIDtm
Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.


It's an analogy. Way to miss the point though!


You trusters are the first to point out any analogy that isn't directly comparable.
This analogy fails in every way.
Shame on you..you know better, but still stoop to such levels.
I guess that happens when running out of arguments.


Pot? Meet kettle.

If you don't perceive just how out there and ridiculous your 'analogy' was, there's no hope.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Fitzgibbon because: Question answered elsewhere; not well but answered as well as could be expected



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia
 


You tell us where it went then, that large chunk that has fallen so far to the side, it vanished into dust as it fell, as did the rest of the towers, incredibly just literally vaporized.


I don't see how any person in a sane state of mind could have starred that, but anyhow, what did you expect to happen to a large chunk of building falling and hitting the ground? Was it supposed to remain entirely intact with a few dings? I mean, how strong do you think the trade center material was? In all likelihood, the chunk fell, hit the ground (becoming a hodgepodge of twisted metal and blown concrete), and then when the tower finished collapsing on top of it, it became further crushed and buried.

I mean, were you expecting it to fly farther to the side and impact a building or something? The top was not thrown off as a projectile. It simply fell.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   


I don't see how any person in a sane state of mind could have starred that, but anyhow, what did you expect to happen to a large chunk of building falling and hitting the ground?


Most of the building was blown to bits before it came anywhere near in contact with the ground. The video shows this and the relatively small debris pile after the collapse confirms it.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join