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.

 

How they got the explosives in the buildings; the easiest part of the puzzle

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


They had the contract to supply security cameras. The World Trade Center was owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who had the final charge of security at the buildings.




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Don't call me a truther and don't call me a liar.?


Why not? you did lie, claiming a Bush was in charge of security at the WTC. You obviously have no idea what someone on the board of directors actually does, so stop making things up and telling lies.

It is not common knowlwdge, just a lie truthers keep pushing1



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Don't call me a truther and don't call me a liar.?


Why not? you did lie, claiming a Bush was in charge of security at the WTC. You obviously have no idea what someone on the board of directors actually does, so stop making things up and telling lies.

It is not common knowlwdge, just a lie truthers keep pushing1


Ridiculing truthers on the impossibility of knowing facts on security is pointless. That's what you debunkers want, you know these talking points will always have massive gray areas.


What you should try to explain is how 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can disintegrate 500,000 tons of mild steel beams/columns. And keep in mind ,one major FACT in the fundamentals of construction , the lower the floor the stronger it is. The floors,concrete,trusses,dampers,steel beams/columns are stronger and thicker.... And most importantly the lower half of the tower's core is reinforced concrete .The upper half is a steel core,to make it equally strong but lighter.


911 storyline is a lie. This you cannot debunk.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


you should try to explain is how 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can disintegrate 500,000 tons of mild steel beams/columns


The fuel weakened the steel on the floors where the fires were. Gravity damaged the rest.


And keep in mind ,one major FACT in the fundamentals of construction , the lower the floor the stronger it is. The floors,concrete,trusses,dampers,steel beams/columns are stronger and thicker....


The floors,concrete,trusses,dampers were the same size all the way down with the exception of the mechanical floors. the columns did increase in size and thickness as they got lower.



most importantly the lower half of the tower's core is reinforced concrete .The upper half is a steel core,to make it equally strong but lighter.



Not true.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by dilly1
 


you should try to explain is how 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can disintegrate 500,000 tons of mild steel beams/columns


The fuel weakened the steel on the floors where the fires were. Gravity damaged the rest.


And keep in mind ,one major FACT in the fundamentals of construction , the lower the floor the stronger it is. The floors,concrete,trusses,dampers,steel beams/columns are stronger and thicker....


The floors,concrete,trusses,dampers were the same size all the way down with the exception of the mechanical floors. the columns did increase in size and thickness as they got lower.



most importantly the lower half of the tower's core is reinforced concrete .The upper half is a steel core,to make it equally strong but lighter.



Not true.




Did the fire weaken the steel below the fire? I'll answer your question: no it didn't. How do I know that because there were no planes impacting the lower floors. So for your poorly thought out theory of gravity is impossible.


*****
The concrete mix was stronger in the all lower floors of all 30+ floor buildings. That's a fact. Concrete on the top floors have weaker mixer than the lowest floors. If the columns were bigger then the trusses/dampers were bigger too .


****
you say not true on the towers cores. Well have you ever built a tower? If its a steel tower the bottom core must be concrete in all towers. Remember the bottom part of any tall structure has to much heavier,not a little bit, much heavier... Do I no where the concrete core ends and the steel commences? No I don't .



****
But let's do this,,,, let's both look for it. I prefer bing. How about you.


And can you please stop with the cut 'n paste. Why do all debunkers do that. Its very irksome.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1



Did the fire weaken the steel below the fire? I'll answer your question: no it didn't. How do I know that because there were no planes impacting the lower floors. So for your poorly thought out theory of gravity is impossible.


So then we agree 22,000 gallons of jet fuel did not disintegrate 500,000 tons of mild steel beams/columns.


****
The concrete mix was stronger in the all lower floors of all 30+ floor buildings. That's a fact. Concrete on the top floors have weaker mixer than the lowest floors. If the columns were bigger then the trusses/dampers were bigger too .


Not true.


***
you say not true on the towers cores. Well have you ever built a tower? If its a steel tower the bottom core must be concrete in all towers. Remember the bottom part of any tall structure has to much heavier,not a little bit, much heavier... Do I no where the concrete core ends and the steel commences? No I don't .


Stronger not heavier.



***
But let's do this,,,, let's both look for it. I prefer bing. How about you.




Lower core of WTC 2 no concrete core, just fire proofed steel columns.


can you please stop with the cut 'n paste. Why do all debunkers do that. Its very irksome.



We do it to point out the stupid things Truthers say, then prove them wrong. If you find it very irksome then I will continue.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by dilly1



Did the fire weaken the steel below the fire? I'll answer your question: no it didn't. How do I know that because there were no planes impacting the lower floors. So for your poorly thought out theory of gravity is impossible.


So then we agree 22,000 gallons of jet fuel did not disintegrate 500,000 tons of mild steel beams/columns.


****
The concrete mix was stronger in the all lower floors of all 30+ floor buildings. That's a fact. Concrete on the top floors have weaker mixer than the lowest floors. If the columns were bigger then the trusses/dampers were bigger too .


Not true.


***
you say not true on the towers cores. Well have you ever built a tower? If its a steel tower the bottom core must be concrete in all towers. Remember the bottom part of any tall structure has to much heavier,not a little bit, much heavier... Do I no where the concrete core ends and the steel commences? No I don't .


Stronger not heavier.



***
But let's do this,,,, let's both look for it. I prefer bing. How about you.




Lower core of WTC 2 no concrete core, just fire proofed steel columns.


can you please stop with the cut 'n paste. Why do all debunkers do that. Its very irksome.



We do it to point out the stupid things Truthers say, then prove them wrong. If you find it very irksome then I will continue.




So typical of amateurs. They insult you and think some picture they found favors their ignorant view. That picture has rebar my good friend. Do you know why we use rebar ? Its used to reinforce concrete.


The core design was a tube 'n tube construction. Do you know what that is? Steel columns reinforced with ,,,guess what? Reinforced cast concrete. I suggest you learn more about Yamsaki's design capabilities. You guys give him no credit.




the illustration below shows you what I mean.








This picture below clearly shows rebar visible for all you amateurs .




Is that all you got. And thanks for that picture!



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Obviously,,I'm not very good posting pictures.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 



Rebar and mesh were used in the floor. No vertical rebar in the World Trade Center Buildings.
rebar



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
stupid drawing 2

Originally posted by dilly1
Obviously,,I'm not very good posting pictures.


Which stupid drawing are you trying to post?

This one?
Stupid drawing 1

Or this one?
Stupid drawing 2


3" rebar? Realy?

edit on 6-8-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 



So typical of amateurs. They insult you and think some picture they found favors their ignorant view. That picture has rebar my good friend. Do you know why we use rebar ? Its used to reinforce concrete.


Its not rebar - its parts of the web truss floor supports

Here is what the web trusses looked like - 1.09 in rods. not rebar

www.debunking911.com...

So who's the ignorant one......?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Actually the parts he is pointing out in his photo as 3" rebar are the stairwell hand rails.

See photo above.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by thedman
 


Actually the parts he is pointing out in his photo as 3" rebar are the stairwell hand rails.

See photo above.



The both of you have lost your minds. Handrails? Is there any member that knows anything about construction.


Do you actually believe 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons(each north and south tower) mild steel and concrete(10,000psi) ?


And how do you explain fire hopping from one tower to the other(WTC7)? How in the world does fire do that? How does that fire with no additional jet fuel pulverize WTC7?


What you all say is inconceivable.

Care to explain.


And what's with "stupid" comments.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ajmusicmedia
 


IDK about anyone else, but reading the OP brought to mind the cult flick Fight Club and its parallels with the 9/11 plotline.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
www.debunking911.com...


Amateurish debunking sites will never trump real physics. Now I know there this claim comes from...


Trusses connected Perimeter columns to the core. Without this connection neither one could stand alone.

www.debunking911.com...

I see no explanation as to that claim anywhere on that page. That whole page is nothing but someones uneducated opinion.

We are arguing, by a bunch of proxies, with nonsense someone else posted on a web site, and yet they accuse us of using 'damned fool conspiracy sites' and 'truther' sites. The irony is almost painful.

Are we in bizarro land, or what? OS supporters, stop posting other peoples nonsense and pretending you know what it all is really about, we can go there and read it ourselves. It has all been debunked already. You need to bring something new to the table because this is all getting a little stupid now. This is like children who just want to argue, and really don't care if their argument is valid or not. In the real world they'd be the kid who thinks he has won an argument because he shouted the loudest.

Who owns that website btw, it shows no information as to who owns it, or put it together. How can you even trust it lol?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join