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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 29
46
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Do We Have To Make Things Personal To Have A Good Discussion?

Nope. Moreover, it's the antithesis of a productive discussion. Why? Because it shifts the focus to an ATS member (and their opinions) rather than on the OP and the systems involved.

I know things get heated. Please try harder to keep your comments pointed toward the events, the systems, the physics, and not each other. Don't use "truther" as an invective.

Thanks for your time. Someday we might all make some headway in the 9/11 events, IF we can find a way to keep the personal rancor out of the equation.

Thanks,

Argentus




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
That's weird, there untold reporters grabbing people to make statements that day, there are literally hundreds of eye witness accounts recorded on video by news channels, some of them were firemen. You posting a piece of text claiming to be from a fireman is not hard evidence. If you have no video then please link to the official investigation reports where these accounts are available.

Sure, the most detail is provided by a 2002 interview with Peter Hayden:
(no link shorteners work, so this is the full URL you'll have to manually copy and paste)
web.archive.org...://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Unfortunately the original firehouse link is offline, but archive.org still have it. The oral histories can be found here: graphics8.nytimes.com...


No, Barry clearly states just after 9am, on video, where is the video of anyone saying it was later? You are making times up, you have provided no video of anyone saying anything to the contrary. Barry is very adamant, and the timings of his phone calls do not lie.

Just after 9am the OEM wasn't evacuated. The two times we have for that are 9:30 and 9:45am. It can't be the case that the OEM was both evacuated but not evacuated at the same time. The times of evacuation can be found on many sites, like the 911 timeline, or the oral histories shown above.


My word, you OS upholders make everything up as you go along, when a piece of official evidence comes along that you cannot refute, you say they changed their story! OK, post a video where he has changed his story, I doubt you can because you made yet another story up!

Firstly, please don't accuse me of making something up before you know for sure. Secondly, what is 'official evidence' here?

In the very first video you link, he immediately talks a red cross rep saying that someone is going to bring a building down and that he had a radio that was playing a countdown, and had to tell Kevin to run for his life.

Of course, this isn't true, because the collapse zone was set up way earlier in the day and the public barricade he was at was much further back than he's implying.

Here's a previous statement by him:

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."


This is why I find it hard to believe him, when his story goes from "I couldn't hear what it was saying" to "He took his hand off and we heard a countdown".


Why can you 'count almost everyone on local radio channels as a conspirator'?? What on earth does the local radio have to do with his official video account?!

According to Kevin, the countdown for demolition of WTC7 was broadcast over a local Red Cross radio. If that's the case then hundreds if not thousands of people would have been aware of this countdown, but yet nobody has come forward. It doesn't add up does it?


Again, you are making stuff up, but then I suspect you have reasons to lie.

Please, feel free to list them. I suspect you have nothing other than "you disagree with me". I mean for god's sake Kevin starts to implicate Amy Goodman, is there any limit to how many people must have known about this but never said anything?
edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: url formatting

edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: more url formatting

edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




I don't give a crap what you think. Answer the friggin question. If you're a "planer", then where's the plane on the BTS website? I mean, is there ANYTHING RIGHT about the OS?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I don't give a crap what you think. Answer the friggin question. If you're a "planer", then where's the plane on the BTS website? I mean, is there ANYTHING RIGHT about the OS?

So let me get this right. You can't find information on the flight of the planes more than a decade after the fact and we're supposed to believe that's a failing of the 'Official Story' rather than your poor research?

The information is easily available, hell Wikipedia has more than what you'd need. I really don't understand what the problem is.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by exponent

I don't think it so much 'flowed', rather 'fell'.


I wouldn't say fell. I would say sucked in. The fuel went up the elevator shafts too.

When AA11 smashed through the towers the 19,500 cu ft of air contained in its fuselage passed through the building in less 1/4 of a second, Also 36756 cu ft of static air had to be displaced as it passed through. This is going to leave a large low pressure area in its wake, which of course is going to suck air out of the elevator shafts. When the air was sucked back in it contained atomised jet fuel. The rest is self explanatory and the evidence supports it.


So where did this static air displace to? And if indeed it did cause a low pressure area, you don't think that great gaping hole it just left in the side of the building might help equalize the pressure instead of a closed elevator shaft?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
So where did this static air displace to? And if indeed it did cause a low pressure area, you don't think that great gaping hole it just left in the side of the building might help equalize the pressure instead of a closed elevator shaft?

I don't really think waypast's argument is correct. There's no real requirement for there to be any low pressure area, and the pressure differences wouldn't affect fuel flow in open air by that great amount. A few different simulations have been run on this sort of scenario, and generally the fuel flows under gravity as far as I know. There was enough to form a fairly thick pool over the whole floor, and if you've ever messed around with any combustible hydrocarbon you know you can make some pretty big flames with not much fuel.

I don't see that there's any need for complex pressure arrangements or flows, just a lot of fuel being partially burned off and dumped onto an office floor. It's going to find its way downhill through whatever openings are there. There's lots and lots of eyewitness accounts from the day saying it did, so that's good enough for me.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




I don't give a crap what you think. Answer the friggin question. If you're a "planer", then where's the plane on the BTS website? I mean, is there ANYTHING RIGHT about the OS?


The only real planers are those who pretend the plane crashes happened and those not familiar with the live broadcasts. These are the official flight paths by the government. Anything coming from west of the towers is different from the required path of 175. West and south aren't the same.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne


I don't see what this is supposed to prove?

How can you claim how the truss seats became damaged, or were missing? It's easy to make the claim that because truss seats failed that must be the cause of the collapse, but you fail in the investigation if you don't address why the truss seats failed in the first place.

If floors simply pancaked wouldn't it be more likely the bolts would break not the welds? Generally a welded joint is stronger than a bolted joint.


A properly welded joint is stronger than the base metal

engineering.purdue.edu...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


If floors simply pancaked wouldn't it be more likely the bolts would break not the welds? Generally a welded joint is stronger than a bolted joint.


A properly welded joint is stronger than the base metal

engineering.purdue.edu...


They failed in the path of least resistance as would be expected.



Detached main truss seats failed near one of two welded joints associated with the standoff plates. Inspection of the weld failures showed that fracture typically occurred in the location with the lowest cross sectional area.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How can you claim how the truss seats became damaged, or were missing? It's easy to make the claim that because truss seats failed that must be the cause of the collapse, but you fail in the investigation if you don't address why the truss seats failed in the first place.

The investigation also addresses why the truss seats failed. If you want more evidence of the situation, read NCSTAR 1-3C. It's entirely devoted to debris studies and I believe they categorise the truss seat damage there.


If floors simply pancaked wouldn't it be more likely the bolts would break not the welds? Generally a welded joint is stronger than a bolted joint.

No, the weld broke off past the bolts (although at the impact level, most tore out, but I know you don't believe any inward force could occur). The force was so great that it overwhelmed the entire truss seat, not just the bolted section onwards.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
Do We Have To Make Things Personal To Have A Good Discussion?

Nope. Moreover, it's the antithesis of a productive discussion. Why? Because it shifts the focus to an ATS member (and their opinions) rather than on the OP and the systems involved.

I know things get heated. Please try harder to keep your comments pointed toward the events, the systems, the physics, and not each other. Don't use "truther" as an invective.

Thanks for your time. Someday we might all make some headway in the 9/11 events, IF we can find a way to keep the personal rancor out of the equation.

Thanks,

Argentus


Agreed



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
Do We Have To Make Things Personal To Have A Good Discussion?

Nope. Moreover, it's the antithesis of a productive discussion. Why? Because it shifts the focus to an ATS member (and their opinions) rather than on the OP and the systems involved.

I know things get heated. Please try harder to keep your comments pointed toward the events, the systems, the physics, and not each other. Don't use "truther" as an invective.

Thanks for your time. Someday we might all make some headway in the 9/11 events, IF we can find a way to keep the personal rancor out of the equation.

Thanks,

Argentus


Agreed



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...

If you still believe that this was caused by office fires, then understand why you reject the obvious:

www.youtube.com...
edit on 27-5-2012 by opnmind because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2012 by opnmind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by exponent

[Quote]We know it was quite a bit after 9am, because the OEM was evacuated when he reached it. That means it was as late as 9:45am, 14 minutes before Tower #1s collapse. This is the likely timeline of events, the explosion he felt was the collapse of WTC2.


No, Barry clearly states just after 9am, on video, where is the video of anyone saying it was later? You are making times up, you have provided no video of anyone saying anything to the contrary. Barry is very adamant, and the timings of his phone calls do not lie.

Where did you pluck the time 9:45am from? Please provide your official source.


There is one fixed time when we know Barry Jennings and Michael Hess must have been in the OEM on the 23rd floor and that is 0959. We know this because they went up in an elevator but could not go down in one because the power was cut off when the South Tower collapsed.

If you want to believe they set off down the stairs before either Tower collapsed you must ask yourself why. Why didn't they just go down the same way they came up ? The power was on and no falling debris had hit WTC 7 yet.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

They (bodies) were there upon arrival, it's documented in all the Barry Jennings video accounts.




Prove it Truther. Give us a link.


Watch the Barry Jennings uncut video, it's documented by him there!

I take it you've not seen that otherwise you would not be asking the question!?

It's in this thread, posted by member maxella, backtrack a couple of pages and enlighten yourself.


Prove it Truther. Give us a video link and time.


Or you could explain my signature?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by plube


...but when it comes to Bazants paper...it was used completely to try to fool the average joe into believing the NIST report as they only mandated to proceed up to initiation and they needed Bazant to show progressive collapse mechanism at all costs....well it is not working.



This is what NIST has to say about what happened after initiation:


Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.
As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core.


And if you look at debris pile you will find the truss seats that connected the floors to the columns are indeed damaged or missing.



Sorry Truther. The evidence supports NIST not you.

www.aws.org...


The problem is you have blind faith in NIST. Am i wrong? Frankly that picture proves many theories,not just NIST.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Flatcoat
So this jet fuel flowed down 80 odd floors to the lobby, where it hung around until the firefighters arrived, then exploded with sufficient force to bring the lobby down on them. Have I got that right?

There were a number of fireballs, jet fuel requires oxygen in the air to burn, so it's hard to say what happened when. Obviously the witness accounts are a bit hard to decipher with regards to time. Still, yeah everyone from random office workers to building management to building workers to fire dept mentioned jet fuel and fireballs, and explicitly so in places like the lobby.

I don't think it so much 'flowed', rather 'fell'.


I know you are referring to WTC 1 and 2 but there was no jet fuel in WTC 7. Riddle me that.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join