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.

 

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 13
137
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 


For some reason you and others on this thread are choosing to ignore the fact that WTC 7 had its own NIST report :-

www.nist.gov...

So far as the BBC prematurely reporting the collapse of WTC 7 how on earth is that supposed to be significant ? Are you seriously suggesting that the perps provided a script to a foreign news outlet so they could follow along but got ahead of themselves ?




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
1,500 structural engineers, demolition experts, and fire science engineers with TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of combined experience believe it was done with explosives.... and people still aren't capable of accepting the truth... how sad for them to hold on so tightly (or be paid enough to sacrifice their own moral integrity).


edit on 15-1-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by spoor
 


I just read about that in a book, and there were actually documents released that indicated that the cockpit recorder was taken away secretly. The cargo of the plane contained weapons and some sort of chemicals used in sarin. I'll transcribe the quote from teh book for you:

Almost six years after the disaster, further details were made public, confirming that the jet's cargo documents had been manipulated and that the "missing" cockpit voice recorder had been covertly shipped to Israel.
Source: Great Disasters In History, page 228

This isn't a conspiratorial book in any way either. Don't believe everything you read on those "silly" websites spoor!

edit on 15-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)


You are right, some people in Amsterdam from the crash site got sick. It's a big cover-up and the people who came into contact with the plane debris, the crash site, etc. etc. were basically screwed. They were flying stuff around they'd rather not talk about.

Goes to show how blind some people become if fully committed to debunking everything before evaluating sources and evidence.
edit on 15-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Nobody was looking for explosives and the evidence was shiped to China. As you stated they were doing Search and Recovery.. Thats a tad bit different than investigating a crime scene.

To be straight up with you Mr.Debunker I have no idea how tight the security was at or around the crime scene, I have no idea who was let in and who wasnt to certain area's. or who was in charge.

--What I can say just as "honestly" as you (with as much proof) is that I also talked to people there that day who were involved with response after the event happend. I was told that the whole operation was taken over by the goverment rigtht away. I was also told that there were people there barking orders and doing stuff and nobody knew who they were or where they came from and when people tried to find out who those people were they were gone.--kinda easy to pull statements out of our ass and present them as facts huh ?

The first link will be for the Pentagon, other two WTC's -

www.historycommons.org...

911research.wtc7.net...

911review.com...

****Editing this link in. The relevant part is about hafl way down. The site provides references:
www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation


edit on 15-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Usually, I'm the guy shouting out the stuff that everyone says is nonsense, and then ten years later it's in a textbook.

It's good to know that, independently of me, people with real educations in Engineering came to the same conclusions that I did.

I can guarantee you, we did not collude and I was influenced in no way whatsoever by monetary compensation.

I posted some similar points a few days ago, HERE

I always wanted to be a scientist, but I had to settle for a career path that aligned with my short attention span.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
1,500 structural engineers, demolition experts, and fire science engineers with TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND HOURS of combined experience believe it was done with explosives.... and people still aren't capable of accepting the truth... how sad for them to hold on so tightly (or be paid enough to sacrifice their own moral integrity).



I assume you are referring to the membership of AE9/11T so you are being disingenous. All their members are certainly not in the relevant categories that you refer to and I am not sure on what you base your statement that they all "believe it was done with explosives."

In any event, 1500 pales into insignificance compared to the 140,000 plus membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers. So far as I am aware the ASCE is not making any representations about being "done with explosives" nor is any other professional engineering body in the world.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
reply to post by thedman
 


Nobody was looking for explosives and the evidence was shiped to China. As you stated they were doing Search and Recovery.. Thats a tad bit different than investigating a crime scene.

To be straight up with you Mr.Debunker I have no idea how tight the security was at or around the crime scene, I have no idea who was let in and who wasnt to certain area's. or who was in charge.

--What I can say just as "honestly" as you (with as much proof) is that I also talked to people there that day who were involved with response after the event happend. I was told that the whole operation was taken over by the goverment rigtht away. I was also told that there were people there barking orders and doing stuff and nobody knew who they were or where they came from and when people tried to find out who those people were they were gone.--kinda easy to pull statements out of our ass and present them as facts huh ?

The first link will be for the Pentagon, other two WTC's -

www.historycommons.org...

911research.wtc7.net...

911review.com...


edit on 15-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



I seem to recall that an outfit called "Controlled Demolitions" was used INSTEAD of the FBI to investigate evidence of any rigged explosives in the building.
Do you remember the same thing -- or has this also gone down the 9/11 memory hole?

>> The MO of the Bush Crime Family is to have the people who set up the crime, be the one's to investigate the crime -- it reduces the motivation to FIND oneself guilty.

My one scenario to REFUTE the notion that nobody could have rigged the building was that it would be easy if they had demolitions experts dressed up as security guards. There were reports that renovations were being done that moved a few offices out at a time. So a shaped charge with a radio control would be a simple as affixing it at the top of the girder just under the ceiling tiles. You would need to make sure all the charges near the wall were pointed inward, so it wouldn't push out a puff of smoke. When the charge goes off, it's about as loud as a fire cracker.

Jessie Ventura mentioned that the military had a "nano thermite" that could go on like paint. I knew a chemist once who made an iodine-based explosive (like the snap n pops that kids play with), that he painted a room with as a prank. When it dried; instant explosive! The guy he was pranking went to bed walking over it, and woke up to a booby-trapped room (the explosions however, were harmless).


>> Experts COULD have looked for any columns that were not bent, and COULD have looked for iron-aluminum residues on some of the molten metal which could NOT POSSIBLY have come from a jet fuel fire.


>> I also DO REMEMBER the "yellow-hot" metal dripping down from the WTC building -- and of course, it could be nothing OTHER than molten steel, because the color of hot metals is quite distinct and an indication of the heat involved.


>>>> It really is a shame that an honest and talented outfit like the Bush government couldn't have had better help in securing and investigating 9/11 so they could prove such an obvious case. /SARCASM
edit on 15-1-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: fix a point



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


No Im with you man I have read about that Demo company also, Its late maybe my post did not come out right I was being a little sarcastic to the debunker I guess. The link I was trying to add in after you quoted me will not format right so it takes people to the main part of the website and not the part that deals with the time line of the clean up. Its in there though great site lots of refences. That site also talks about the Department of Design and Construction (DDC)

The part I add'd in that says I talked to people that day was just an attempt to show him that people can say whatever they want on the internet but it does not make it true it goes both ways. He said he had first hand knowledge by talking face to face with people who were there but did not show any proof.

Like I am going to take the word of one the main 911 debunkers on this website. When they obviously follow the script from this site : www.whale.to... Which was shown to me today in this thread :www.abovetopsecret.com... --- Props to member qver74
edit on 15-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
1,500 structural engineers, demolition experts, and fire science engineers with TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND HOURS of combined experience believe it was done with explosives.... and people still aren't capable of accepting the truth... how sad for them to hold on so tightly (or be paid enough to sacrifice their own moral integrity).



I assume you are referring to the membership of AE9/11T so you are being disingenous. All their members are certainly not in the relevant categories that you refer to and I am not sure on what you base your statement that they all "believe it was done with explosives."

In any event, 1500 pales into insignificance compared to the 140,000 plus membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers. So far as I am aware the ASCE is not making any representations about being "done with explosives" nor is any other professional engineering body in the world.



The only thing you might refer to is engineers who have put their credibility on the line and said; "The NIST model of the collapse makes sense."

The silence of 140,000 engineers says -- well, "nothing" in a really big way.

In the case of Climate Change, there are a huge number of professionals and a great deal of consensus.
>> Climate is also a much more complex system; there are no engineering diagrams and the data must be modeled for thousands of years with uncountable inputs that can change details.

>> The NIST report is compartmentalized. The engineers who might be writing about the elasticity or strength of steel are just reporting that. The FINAL MODEL and conclusions, are from only a few engineers.

from the NIST factsheet
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

In the case of WTC 7; this theory was the same one that was proposed when the NIST insisted that it took quite a while for the building to collapse. Later video evidence revealed it took 7 seconds for ANOTHER building (WTC 7) to fall into it's own footprint.

I wasn't aware that Steel had so many thermal expansion capabilities -- I always thought it just transmitted heat rather than fluffed out like a biscuit in an oven.

The NIST goes on to talk about a "cascade of floors." Because only a "pancake" collapse could explain a straight-down fall into the greatest direction of resistance (e.g., the building is designed to HOLD ITSELF UP). In this case at least, it was the 13th floor -- rather more believable than having the loss of structural integrity collapse all the floors 80 floors below which had no fire and used to hold the weight above them.


>> I'm still wondering why this point ever passed the smell test; extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region -- from my own limited knowledge, but advanced horse sense, I figured that fireproofing on Steel girders was to prevent the spreading of fires. Losing the insulation would have reduced the heat build-up and prevented trusses from sagging. However, assuming they were trying to say that this loss of insulation would have caused fires in floors below the impact is at the same time not compelling, as those girders would have insulation still on them. The removal of insulation near the fire would only serve to spread heat throughout the structure, but not enough time or heat was involved to raise the temperature enough to create widespread fires. It seems a bit of logic that might convince people not really thinking about the thermal dynamics. I could be wrong -- but I've not heard any compelling explanation, other than improbable ideas that a blast could actually strip insulation or paint off a girder.


>>>> But my main point again; there are NOT a lot of engineers signing up for the Government theory or the NIST's model. If you want to count numbers -- you've got thousands signing up for a socially and politically difficult position that it was a demolition, vs. who many who signed the NIST conclusion? Was it even a dozen? Three guys maybe? Is there a Pro-Bush 9.11 Engineering peer reviewed article we are not aware of?

I'm not saying there isn't, but I'd like to know who.
edit on 15-1-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: to clarify which building I was talking about.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
In any event, 1500 pales into insignificance compared to the 140,000 plus membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

I love how you keep presuming to speak for the ASCE when nowhere have they advocated either side of the conspiracy. They even went as far as to say that their engineers' opinions do not necessarily represent the position of the ASCE.

That you keep peddling deliberate disinformation gives your side of the fence less and less credibility. Just making things up to prove a non-existent point.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhereAreTheGoodguys
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


No Im with you man I have read about that Demo company also, Its late maybe my post did not come out right I was being a little sarcastic to the debunker I guess. The link I was trying to add in after you quoted me will not format right so it takes people to the main part of the website and not the part that deals with the time line of the clean up. Its in there though great site lots of refences. That site also talks about the Department of Design and Construction (DDC)
...
Like I am going to take the word of one the main 911 debunkers on this website. When they obviously follow the script from this site : www.whale.to... Which was shown to me today in this thread :www.abovetopsecret.com... --- Props to member qver74
edit on 15-1-2012 by WhereAreTheGoodguys because: (no reason given)



LOL, I was reading your "whale" link about Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation -- and it seems to me this describes almost every blog battle I've been in about the "rush to war in Iraq", "global warming", and of course 911. The utility and massive data resource that the Internet has become, is nearly outdone by the spamming, misinformation and distractions that have been put up by commercial and agenda-led people.

By the way, what was the Department of Design and Construction (DDC)? Was that some BushCo quasi-credible name for some people they hired?

Yes, I did remember correctly, Bush did hired Controlled Demolitions for the investigation LINK
What's funny is that one point I just made about the fires was the top point on this Yahoo blog;


Gaili...the only thing that doesn't jive with what you said is that there is a woman standing in that GAPING hole and was filmed there seconds before the building collapsed...how can heat melt 45 solid steel 110 story high beams...and leave a woman waving in the heart of it all. See below. LINK


THEN, we get an entire College course on your 25 techniques at Suppressing Truth!


It starts off with the OUTRAGE;


Neither. Is this a 9/11 conspiracy theory? Remember, people died there. Real people with lives, families, loves, etc... all the things you take for granted now.
Don't make light of their tragedy.

>> Is this to say we should NEVER investigate a murder, because real people died? Or, if after the police pin it on someone with a forced confession and DNA evidence later places someone else at the scene that investigating the innocence of a previous suspect is an affront to the dead?

Often we get the; How dare you impugne the reputation of the United States of America -- people have died for our flag!
>> When I was almost sure I've been impugning the reputation of Cheney and Bush, the most corrupt, bad-reputationed, war profiteering, skull screwing bunch of crooks that we've ever sent to Washington. I don't think I once mentioned America, the flag or even middle-aged white people.

The below that comment, we get the classic Chewbacca Defense!


Oh, why not go with Castro? since you're headed in the direction of absurd!

>> I think that saying "why not blame Big Foot?" usually does a better job at destroying the conversation.

A few comments down, and we have the calm points of a Truther showing how Building 6 stands between the WTC 1&2 and prevent a direct path for debris to WTC 7 LINK
WTC 6 got a big gaping hole in it, but it didn't fall.
>> It's evidence, rational discussion, and asking the question; How does the building between still stand? I remember some theory that a fireball was pushed through the underground tunnels to WTC 7.

>> I still remember the early days, when the explosions and destruction in the lower lobby was a magic fireball pushed down through the elevator shafts. I pointed out that halfway down, you have to get off the elevator and get on a completely different one -- I might have silenced rebuttal by asking how the fireball would push the elevator button...

Then we get the appeal to authority response, with a bit of Straw Man thrown in;


... If you talk to any legitimate engineer who has read the 911 Report, they will tell you that all the evidence (ALL of the evidence) shows that the fuel superheated ...
Do you believe that our President has the ability to cover up something that big, obvious, and easy to prove?

>> It's like millions of us "Truthers" aren't saying that it's a cover up, it's big and obvious, and LOOK at that demolition looking collapse. Apparently, getting away SCOTT FREE means fooling SOME of the people all of the time.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Sek82
It's poorly explained perfect collapse was not worth including in the 9/11 report,


You STILL have not read the purpose of that report, although it has been posted twice in this thread....


I heard that before 9/11, there had never been a highrise building that collapsed from fire


I also heard that before 9/11 no highrise building had been hit by a loaded jet airliner....



Actually, you should NOT have heard that last comment from an informed person. The Empire State Building was hit by a large military aircraft. Due to this concern, the engineers designing the WTC were forced to consider that it would be hit by the largest aircraft at the time; the Boeing 707.

Also, the North Tower had a fire consume two floors for hours, just weeks before it was set to open. This incident forced them to add a sprinkler system even though I'm supposing that the insulation was for this purpose and it's quite a lot of work to INSTALL sprinklers in a building that size.


>> Never before and never SINCE 9/11 has a steel structure been destroyed by fire. A chinese hi-rise under construction burnt for nearly an entire day. Some steel sagged, but it never fell.

Building 7 was a different construction than the North and South towers -- but it fell the same way. So the onus is on the NIST to come up with something besides Progressive Collapse and Thermal Expansion for completely different buildings.

They need to PROVE that there was something wrong with the steel in the building -- but that evidence was destroyed when BushCo recycled it in China.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The Empire State Building was hit by a large military aircraft.


Actually, the B-25 was NOT a large military, it only weighed about 8,855 kg, with a cruising speed of 370 km/h

The 767 that hit 1 WTC weighed over 124,000 kg and was travelling at about 750 km/h



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Alfie1
In any event, 1500 pales into insignificance compared to the 140,000 plus membership of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

I love how you keep presuming to speak for the ASCE when nowhere have they advocated either side of the conspiracy. They even went as far as to say that their engineers' opinions do not necessarily represent the position of the ASCE.

That you keep peddling deliberate disinformation gives your side of the fence less and less credibility. Just making things up to prove a non-existent point.





You can't just ignore the fact that the huge membership of the ASCE is making no representations about " controlled demolition" and that distinguished members helped produce the NIST reports. Nor the fact that no professional engineering body in the world is. If "controlled demolition" is so obvious, why not ?

Of course all the civil engineers in the world have not been polled but it is reasonable to infer from what they have been talking about in relation to 9/11, i.e. improved fire-proofing, evacuation facilities etc , that they are not buying into explosives.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The Empire State Building was hit by a large military aircraft.


Actually, the B-25 was NOT a large military, it only weighed about 8,855 kg, with a cruising speed of 370 km/h

The 767 that hit 1 WTC weighed over 124,000 kg and was travelling at about 750 km/h



The POINT IS, that when the WTC was designed and built -- the big concern they had to address was it being hit by airplanes.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


There are plenty of pics available showing WTC 7 being clobbered by falling debris from the North Tower :-

www.youtube.com...

With regard to your supposed rebuttal of fuel fireballs going down lift shafts you need to check it out. There were continuous shafts from the impact zones to the basements.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The Empire State Building was hit by a large military aircraft.


Actually, the B-25 was NOT a large military, it only weighed about 8,855 kg, with a cruising speed of 370 km/h

The 767 that hit 1 WTC weighed over 124,000 kg and was travelling at about 750 km/h



The POINT IS, that when the WTC was designed and built -- the big concern they had to address was it being hit by airplanes.


You might want to hear what Leslie Robertson says about anticipated plane impact. After all, he should know.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
You can't just ignore the fact that the huge membership of the ASCE is making no representations about " controlled demolition" and that distinguished members helped produce the NIST reports.

But you are not their spokesperson, nor do you represent any other architects or engineers anywhere in the world. It is dishonest to claim that because none of them have publicly stated one way or another, that they automatically side with the official conspiracy theory. And attempting to falsely misrepresent an organization and its views implies deliberate deception on your part.



Originally posted by Alfie1
You might want to hear what Leslie Robertson says about anticipated plane impact. After all, he should know.

Leslie Robertson was a right-hand, an assistant. John Skilling was the chief engineer, along with his engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Skilling invited Robertson to assist with the WTC project.

Robertson is a liar, and an incompetent fool. Either the BBC didn't do their homework when they claimed that Robertson was the "chief engineer who built the towers", or Robertson is trying to take the credit away from John Skilling.

Either way, someone is lying, and Robertson has lied before. Do your own research and stop believing biased news sources.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Without wanting to sound arrogant,IMO 53 of walking the planet with a working brain has given me enough understanding of common natural physics to confidently say that the collapse of WTC7 is unnatural.

The loss of all support on all sides at the exact same moment clearly isn't possible.
If this really was a structural failure, convenient crack in the middle included,
then demolition expert wouldn't be much of a skill would it?
Apparently all that's needed is to cause some totally random damage and a building will collapse on it's own footprint, as we all have seen on 9/11 (That and some other unique 9/11 only events.. )


People can say all they want, but I don't need any Architect or Engineer to confirm or deny something that obvious. (No disrespect towards Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and I'm happy they're speaking out!)

edit on 15/1/12 by Barbaricfellow because: Error corrected




top topics



 
137
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join