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.

 

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

page: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air

A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range. 2

Pyroclastic Flows
Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air. An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage:

[color=gold]The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures.


911research.wtc7.net...

I did a search on A&E website” Pyroclastic Clouds” and here are some of the results I found.
Notice in almost all the articles that came up stated Pyroclastic-like or Pyroclastic-like clouds.

I did not read that A&E said or all their scientist agreed that there was “volcano ash” coming out of the WTC when the demolition occurred. So as for the OS die-hart supporters your argument is not genuine, neither are the excuses that some of you continue to dream up.

Any idiot should know what pyroclastic clouds are, the subject is taught in most elementary schools.



A summary of Evidence A Call to Action

(News/News Releases By AE911Truth - English (United Kingdom))
... tons of concrete, and massive volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds 6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone” 7. Total destruction of all three buildings, ..

2. High Temperatures, Persistent Heat & 'Molten Steel' at WTC Site Contradict Official Story
(News/News Releases By AE911Truth - English (United Kingdom))
... hot” at the very beginning of the flow and “yellow-orange” further down. Iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust are additional proof of temperatures above the melting point of iron. Pyroclastic-like, rapidly ...

3. Twin Towers Evidence Blows Away Fire Collapse Theory
(News/News Releases By AE911Truth - English (United Kingdom))
... 70 mph as if shot out of a cannon. Some 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking were pulverized, creating pyroclastic-like flows (hot gases with suspended solids) similar to those observed and filmed ...

4. Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates
(News/News Releases By AE911Truth - English (United Kingdom))
... amounts of explosives of a type which resulted in molten metal and the huge pyroclastic-like cloud of dust that covered lower Manhattan. Craig, conversely, said there was “no signature of explosions” ...

5. CANADA Welcomes AE911Truth & David Ray Griffin
(News/News Releases By AE911Truth - English (United Kingdom))
... of Steel, Adjacent Structures, Sounds and Flashes, Explosions, Pyroclastic–like Clouds, Iron Spheres, Molten Metal, and Evidence of Thermite incendiaries and nano–therimite composite explosives. He also ...

www.ae911truth.org...



View Full Version : Get it right: "Pyroclastic" is a VOLCANIC term!
fuelair
20th February 2008, 06:02 PM
The tendancy to call it a pyroclastic flow is child-like.

And then they get upset about being called twoofers.

Also child-like.

Actually, children love to learn stuff. Troofers don't.

forums.randi.org...

It is obvious that many of you OS supporters are getting your information from “Randi. org” a well-known disinformation web site. Randi.org website is a tool for people who want to believe in the OS and it sole purpose is to support the OS lies. Anyone can spend 10 min reading the opinions from the many authors and bloggers from Randi. org to conclude that, and we are seeing the same information used on ATS from Randi.org website to insult science.

Some of you debunkers supporting the OS should research both sides of 911 instead on depending on one sided biased opinions from a well-known disinformation website.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 



Your point is entirely correct yet ATS user impressme gets the win for being right

Huh?

In case anyone is confused Spam is a chicken like prouct - it is not chicken and a pyroclastic-like cloud is not a pyroclastic cloud.

Uh, Spam is a ham product, not chicken, Spam - Spiced Ham. And a cloud of dust is a cloud of dust, or if you're into the whole brevity thing, man - dust cloud.

Once again language is a failing ' why no attention is paid to them' well I pay attention to them. The OS is a classic case in Papal Fallibility.

Do you mean Papal Infallibility? The religious concept that the Pope, being the Vicar of Christ on Earth, may from time to time make a pronouncement that is declared infallible by virture of the Pope's special relation with the Lord?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Two magic words: Patriot Act. It was the only legal way to stop the nonsence of us having unalienable rights in a police state. There are no protections now for the people who were once the most free in history.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



It is obvious that many of you OS supporters are getting your information from “Randi. org” a well-known disinformation web site. Randi.org website is a tool for people who want to believe in the OS and it sole purpose is to support the OS lies. Anyone can spend 10 min reading the opinions from the many authors and bloggers from Randi. org to conclude that, and we are seeing the same information used on ATS from Randi.org website to insult science.

I get my information regarding pyroclastic clouds from my college geology courses.

Some of you debunkers supporting the OS should research both sides of 911 instead on depending on one sided biased opinions from a well-known disinformation website.

There is no more "two sides" to 9/11 then there are "two sides" to whether the moon is made of cheese or there is a Santa Claus.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



It is obvious that many of you OS supporters are getting your information from “Randi. org” a well-known disinformation web site. Randi.org website is a tool for people who want to believe in the OS and it sole purpose is to support the OS lies. Anyone can spend 10 min reading the opinions from the many authors and bloggers from Randi. org to conclude that, and we are seeing the same information used on ATS from Randi.org website to insult science.
I get my information regarding pyroclastic clouds from my college geology courses.


Apparently you did not understand the different between pyroclastic clouds and “like pyroclastic clouds”. It was basically an observation that some scientist were making.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



Apparently you did not understand the different between pyroclastic clouds and “like pyroclastic clouds”. It was basically an observation that some scientist were making.


And exactly what was pyroclastic about the cloud? The extremely high temperature? The mix of dangerous gases? The presence of large rocks? The high rate of travel? The proximity to an active volcano? These are things that make a simple cloud of dust pyroclasitc.

Or possibly just the oppurtunity to use a little misleading hyperbole?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


The fact remains that the firefighters claimed the building was going to "collapse" (not even globally collapse), based on a hole they saw in the building created by a single piece of flying debris, that even the official NIST report on WTC7 claimed played an insignificant role in that building's "collapse." That is a direct contradiction between the firefighters' layman conjecture and NIST's unsupported final hypothesis.



Ooh really? Please repost the exact quote where they specifically said that the hole was the only reason it as going to collapse. I'm calling you out to show me that they based their decision it was going to collapse solely on the hole in the building.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ooh really? Please repost the exact quote where they specifically said that the hole was the only reason it as going to collapse. I'm calling you out to show me that they based their decision it was going to collapse solely on the hole in the building.


It's not going to make a difference whether it was the hole, or "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, or whatever their layman reasoning was, because they would have absolutely no scientific precedent whatsoever to base any such judgment on.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The man said the lobby was "totally destroyed" and "it looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it", so it's irrefutable that the interior of the building suffered catastrophic damage.


Right, and he attributed it to explosions going off, if you consult his total testimony. No one has ever presented evidence of any invisible debris from WTC1 flying through the lobby before it even collapsed or any other fairy tale you would have to believe, for his testimony to be in any way compatible with the official story.


Hey! Whoa! Stop right there! Are you seriously suggesting WTC 7 was never hit by any debris from the north tower? There was a massive frigging crater in the roof of WTC 5 from where debris fell down on it, and this crater was the same distance from the north tower as WTC 7 was. WTC 6 was completely crushed by the north tower falling and WTC 7 was immediately behind it. How could WTC 7 *not* be hit by debris?

Go ahead. Say that no debris from the north tower hit WTC 7. I double dog dare you.



Then you asked a stupid question that you already knew the correct answer to, didn't you? What's your point?


Talk about a stupid question. You already knew the answer to that- you're consciously invoking a double standard to suit your agenda. There was no concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 so it's proper to dismiss it, but when there's no concrete evidence of any secret controlled demolitions in any of the buildings it's perfectly fine to cling to the hope there will be evidence "some day". When the heck is this "some day" going to come? It's ten years later and all you people have is the exact same tired stuff you've been quoting ten years ago.

You seriously don't see anything phony with this?


So you think by showing that two testimonies that support the "truth movement" don't contradict each other, you someone prove that all the testimonies that are contradicted within the "official story" aren't actually contradictions? Why do you even waste your time posting blatant fallacies like this?


What on EARTH are you attempting to say in this sentence?


The fact remains that the firefighters claimed the building was going to "collapse" (not even globally collapse), based on a hole they saw in the building created by a single piece of flying debris, that even the official NIST report on WTC7 claimed played an insignificant role in that building's "collapse." That is a direct contradiction between the firefighters' layman conjecture and NIST's unsupported final hypothesis.


You are just plain lying through your teeth here. There is no "fact that the firefighters said the building was going to collapse from the hole in the building". They said it was going to collapse from the bulging and the sagging caused by the out of control fires. They knew that because they were standing right there watching all this going on and it was this eyewitness account that NIST based their scenarios on.


Wrong again. Show me where I anywhere claimed these noises were "concussive noises from large structural components colliding with each other." There is no evidence of that, and Bartmer himself even says they were explosions and that he believes he knows what explosions going off are when he hears them.


It's becoming painfully obvious a critical factor of your being suckered by the drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites is your atrocious reading comprehension. I didn't say *you* said the noises were "concussive noises". I said that *I* said they were concussive noises. The fact is, Bartmer was one of 100,000 people in Manhattan that day watching all this going on, and I can either believe that Bartmer was by some supernatural magic able to hear the precise decibel range indicative of explosives that noone else could hear, or, everyone including heard the exact same collapse noises and you're dishonestly embellishing things into the way you want it to sound.

Guess which scenario I'm putting my money on.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Hey! Whoa! Stop right there! Are you seriously suggesting WTC 7 was never hit by any debris from the north tower?


Not the lobby where Jennings was talking about.


I know though, all your posts are based on manipulating information anyway... It's all you have to work with at this point.



Go ahead. Say that no debris from the north tower hit WTC 7. I double dog dare you.


I've been saying through several posts that even NIST says this damage was insignificant to the hypothetical "collapse" scenario they came up with.

So obviously you know better and are being intentionally dishonest because you have no other argument than to lie and put words in my mouth.



Talk about a stupid question. You already knew the answer to that- you're consciously invoking a double standard to suit your agenda. There was no concrete evidence that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 so it's proper to dismiss it, but when there's no concrete evidence of any secret controlled demolitions in any of the buildings it's perfectly fine to cling to the hope there will be evidence "some day".


Now you're changing the subject again. There is plenty of evidence that supports the CD hypothesis, but even when presented with a piece of evidence as simple as explosions that go "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM" you start making stuff up and putting words in witnesses mouths. How in the hell can you have a rational discussion with someone who does that?


You are just plain lying through your teeth here. There is no "fact that the firefighters said the building was going to collapse from the hole in the building". They said it was going to collapse from the bulging and the sagging caused by the out of control fires.


Same difference, they wouldn't have any way of predicting it was going to suddenly behave like a classic controlled demolition and have the entire building free-fall to the ground. NIST spent years trying to figure out how the hell that could happen and still came up with a piss-poor model that looked nothing like reality.



It's becoming painfully obvious a critical factor of your being suckered by the drivel coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites is your atrocious reading comprehension. I didn't say *you* said the noises were "concussive noises". I said that *I* said they were concussive noises.


And I don't care what some anonymous person is saying on this damned fool conspiracy website. You're in no position to arbitrarily change witness testimony just because it proves you wrong.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Or possibly just the oppurtunity to use a little misleading hyperbole?


No amount of damage control will bail you out of your knee jerk oversight. As far as your claim for scientist “to use a little misleading hyperbole”, no one has. This is what happens when people make up fallacies to prove their arguments.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


What proof do you have that a building, if it falls into its own footprint, must be a controlled demolition?


Physics is my proof. A buildings outer walls can not fall into the path of most resistance, period. It takes an implosion type of demolition in order to make a space for the outer walls to fall inward. That is the ONLY way that can happen. IF it was a natural collapse the outer walls would have to be underneath the rubble, not on top. The walls would naturally be forced outwards by the collapsing inner building as there would be nowhere else for them to go.

If you understood the physics and how, and why, implosion demolitions works you would understand that. WTC 7 was in every sense of the word a classic implosion demolition. The tallest to ever be done. The last one was only 23 stories, why do you think that is Gen? Maybe because...

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
HUH?


Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

And yet you want to believe that can happen from asymmetrical damage and fires? You think you have a logical argument that contradicts my claim? Without referring to NIST, or Bazant etc., lets hear it.

How many times have I explained this to you personally Gen huh? Why do you all insist on playing ignorant as to the argument we/I continuously put forward? You always act like this is the first time you've ever heard of this.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
Ooh really? Please repost the exact quote where they specifically said that the hole was the only reason it as going to collapse. I'm calling you out to show me that they based their decision it was going to collapse solely on the hole in the building.


It's not going to make a difference whether it was the hole, or "leaning" or "bulging" that you can't show in any photographs, or whatever their layman reasoning was, because they would have absolutely no scientific precedent whatsoever to base any such judgment on.


So in effect, what you are saying is that firefighters are stupid? Is that it? Ok, fine, that is your opinion, and everyone is entitled to theirs. Fact is, firefighters are trained to spot structural instability, and I gave you plenty of evidence for it. You have been shown many accounts of firefighters, including chiefs and commanders, that stated plainly that WTC7 was showing serious signs of compromised integrity. That is their job.

No scientific judgment?
Why dont you just go down to NYC and tell the firefighters there that they have no idea when it comes to judging a burning building's stability. Tell them they are stupid. You are going to look pretty funny trying to eat corn on the cob with no teeth, once they are done with you.

Did you even look at the link I posted? I doubt it. I've seen some petty ignorance before, but nothing like this. Embracing ignorance must be bliss for you eh?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


What proof do you have that a building, if it falls into its own footprint, must be a controlled demolition?


Physics is my proof. A buildings outer walls can not fall into the path of most resistance, period. It takes an implosion type of demolition in order to make a space for the outer walls to fall inward. That is the ONLY way that can happen. IF it was a natural collapse the outer walls would have to be underneath the rubble, not on top. The walls would naturally be forced outwards by the collapsing inner building as there would be nowhere else for them to go.

If you understood the physics and how, and why, implosion demolitions works you would understand that. WTC 7 was in every sense of the word a classic implosion demolition. The tallest to ever be done. The last one was only 23 stories, why do you think that is Gen? Maybe because...

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
HUH?


Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

And yet you want to believe that can happen from asymmetrical damage and fires? You think you have a logical argument that contradicts my claim? Without referring to NIST, or Bazant etc., lets hear it.

How many times have I explained this to you personally Gen huh? Why do you all insist on playing ignorant as to the argument we/I continuously put forward? You always act like this is the first time you've ever heard of this.


Ah yes, physics, right, physics says it.
Yeeaah, no, I asked you specifically how a building cannot fall into its own footprint without the use of explosives, not give me a BS answer about how you think physics says it. Show me in a demolition handbook, or an engineering guide on buildings, that SPECIFICALLY states that a building cannot fall into its own footprint unless its blown up. I dont want to hear your warped idea of how physics works in your mind, and I dont want to hear your chopped and glued together idea of physics. I want actual proof. Not your incredulity. I want all truthers to know this fact: Incredulity is not evidence or proof of anything.

How do you know that WTC7 collapsed through the most resistance? Do you have X-ray vision? What about the fact that the penthouse collapsed first, indicating the interior suffered a collapse first, and what we saw was the shell collapsing? Also, its started collapsing from the base. How is that "collapsing through the most resistance"?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monteriano
reply to post by SatoriTheory
 


Two magic words: Patriot Act. It was the only legal way to stop the nonsence of us having unalienable rights in a police state. There are no protections now for the people who were once the most free in history.


Do you really think they needed to do all they done that day just so they could introduce the Patriot Act?
Three planes into buildings. One into the ground. Three buildings pulled down. One damaged.

As for being the most free. I would question that. Freedom does not and never has existed. We are slaves from birth.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So in effect, what you are saying is that firefighters are stupid? Is that it?


If you want to put it that way, I'm generally not that cynical.


Fact is, firefighters are trained to spot structural instability


But that's a pretty useless fact when all the clues about "structural instability" in the world would not have been able to scientifically predict something that had never even happened in the history of the world, ever.



Why dont you just go down to NYC and tell the firefighters there that they have no idea when it comes to judging a burning building's stability. Tell them they are stupid. You are going to look pretty funny trying to eat corn on the cob with no teeth, once they are done with you.


That's like saying why don't you show up at my house and call me stupid. Are you actually going for a logical point here, or gave up on that already?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So in effect, firefighters have no reason to suspect ANY building is in danger of collapse even if it is exhibiting all the signs of imminent danger? The fact that WTC7 was leaning being recorded and supported by data from a surveyor transit, that was observing the gradual tilt? That wouldnt alarm you? I'm glad you are not a fire commander then.

So great, yeah, no other building has ever collapsed like WTC7 before, however, firefighters are not stupid, like how you like to paint them, and they can see for themselves the danger signs. WTC7 was showing many signs of structural integrity failing. They knew it was eventually going to collapse. It didnt take a rocket scientists to figure out that it was doomed. Just because YOU believe that they are not capable of figuring out something obvious, doesnt mean they arent.

Did you even bother looking at the link? I still doubt it. Why learn something important, when it is in danger of popping your bubble? Ignorance is bliss in your world. ATS is to deny ignorance. Not embrace and promote it.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So in effect, firefighters have no reason to suspect ANY building is in danger of collapse even if it is exhibiting all the signs of imminent danger?


Nope.

So this is the phase in your trolling where you start twisting my words until you can finally make a legitimate argument against them, and they resemble nothing like what I actually say?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
You know Gen just because someone thought it might collapse, there is no way on this planet they could have had even the slightest idea it would collapse into its own footprint.

There was NO precedence for them to base such a claim on. You can not predict a building will collapse into its footprint, unless it was set up to do that.

It is not possible for a building to fall into its footprint from a natural collapse, so your claims are not logical.

Forget what people said, how about explaining how you think the outer walls can wait for the rest of the building to collapse, and then fall after the fact on top of the rest of the collapsed building, in an uncontrolled collapse?

How can an uncontrolled collapse perfectly mimic the outcome of an implosion demolition?





It can't...



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

But that's a pretty useless fact when all the clues about "structural instability" in the world would not have been able to scientifically predict something that had never even happened in the history of the world, ever.


So the firefighters looked at the building and saw it exhibiting all the signs they'd been trained to look for in a building about to collapse. Oh hang on, they said, this one's steel framed. It'll probably be different. And not collapse. Even though it's showing all the signs of being about to do so.

Can you say "category error"?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join