Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by phyllida
 




he just laughed and said if 2 small jets could bring down those buildings they were a bloody poor design!

Precisely why building designs now stay away from this design.




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by phyllida
 




he just laughed and said if 2 small jets could bring down those buildings they were a bloody poor design!

Precisely why building designs now stay away from this design.



My personal opinion is that 'debunkers' should stay out of this thread. I've long been pushing the truth movement to try and build consensus on an alternate explanation of events. Now it seems that people are trying to do exactly that.

All threads generally end up in pointless bickering, so perhaps we could leave the believers in these theories to debate amongst themselves?

Just a polite request



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by phyllida
 




he just laughed and said if 2 small jets could bring down those buildings they were a bloody poor design!

Precisely why building designs now stay away from this design.



Where are the 2x110 floor pans, each and everyone filled with 4'' of rock hard concrete
to be seen from photos of the rubble piles?
Either something other that airplanes disintegrated these virtually indestructable components
or the footage and photographs we have been privy to are not genuine (i.e. CGI or Photoshop).

And the latter explanation has been proven over and over again.
Faking The Rubble.

For you, dave et al to stick so doggedly to lies and impossibilities roars volumes about
your allegiances.

This forum has gone to s**t.
All part of the plan i'm sure.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I suppose then its a good thing that there has been the 911 revisited conference in Malaysia although the media is very very quiet about it I notice, just lots of footage on youtube but can't find a thing in the press



Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth speaks at length as do many others but I must confess to finding the section on prosecuting war crimes interesting.
edit on 6-12-2012 by phyllida because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Good idea for a thread LaBTop but I'm not so sure how well it will turn out.

One thing I got from it though was the TB. To be honest I had not really heard about that before as even an option etc. Yes I for one don't research as much as you (but then again who does? lol)

A few suggestions though, maybe you could include a small abstract synopsis that lays out the angle before you post the evidence for it and just include the most relevant data links to back it up. Though I see mostly where your head is at with the data, I myself find your presentation of it somewhat overwhelming and at times hard to follow.

You seem to fancy this thermobaric material though, maybe it would be good to just flesh this out in a single thread, by using like Tower 1 as the example and to work out the components and amount of material, how it could/would be set off, and what lingering effects would result from its use. You know, a simple, not too data or link intensive break down for people like me who have barely heard of this option.

While googling it myself though I heard mention of "corrosion" as related to its use. And I am wondering if this is the same corrosion seen on the steel and with the toasted cars? Does setting off this thing corrode stuff unnaturally? Can you address this one thing for me?

Also, take a look at this pic:



I'm wondering about the vertical smoke plumes covering the entire sides of both tower 1 (left) and building 7 (right). What's going on here? Like tower one was supposedly hit by a plane and you can see it smoking from that location, but still its side is frothing up one entire side from the ground. People could say well it's the wind, the tower windows didn't open so what else could it be? Maybe.

Anyway, the same effect can be seen on building 7. Now I haven't plotted wind direction or any wind tunnel effects it just seems strange that there would be head to toe smoke on one side of each building like that. Tower one smoking from the top, well ok. But building 7 had only some floors on fire lower down, again, not sure of the locations, but why would both buildings exhibit this smoke pattern?

Do all high rise fire scenarios exhibit this smoking pattern? I'll have to check.

Is there anything with the TB angle that would cause this as any kind of prepping of the buildings? Is something being spread throughout the entire building first from the basements through the ducts or something. Can you address this with what you know about TB, thanks.


Cheers



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


This is the post where I added the NIST report material about how they corrected all the photo and video material in their possession by comparing it to well known events on 9/11 that were filmed with networks cameras that were connected to atomic clocks at NIST. That's how they corrected the mostly wrong set camera times :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

At page 20 / 24 in this PDF you find the Nicholas Cianca photos.
He made that famous photo of the first sign of global collapse at WTC 7, the penthouse-roof sinking.
And on that photo its official timestamp I based my seismic WTC 7 thesis on, that the huge first peak in the LDEO seismogram of the WTC 7 collapse was taking place in New York's Manhattan inside WTC 7, BEFORE the global collapse started.
And that peak depicted a much bigger amplitude than that of the whole group of peaks following, which depicted the total collapse of all the columns and beams in that huge, 47 stories high rise building.
Try to explain that without introducing any kind of explosives, be it Thermobarics, mini neutron fission nukes or conventional explosives such as C4, RDX, etcetera. Or some kind of expanding material inside the main, closed box-columns, that could be forced to expand suddenly, to let the steel shatter.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Detonations in WTC 1 and 2 and that very low frequency sound from explosives in WTC 7, a few seconds before the roof started to sink down. Turn your speaker sound up....

And 330 results for threads and posts by LaBTop on the "seismic " subject.

Read first that whole page 11 from that thread by me, titled :
I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

I am quite sure, after you read that, you want to read the whole thread.

I emphasize again, TB's could be used, which have a very low frequency sound-"footprint".

Or conventional HE's, embedded in flooded sub-basements, or just simply hung in standard 1 cubic meter containers filled with water. The water will muffle the huge explosion sound normally heard when exploded in air.
In water, you will only hear a very low "HHHUMFFFFFF".
And see a lot of WHITE STEAM, just as can be seen at the bottom of the two Towers just before collapse.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Additions for Jeff Prager's work on the same nuclear subject, already debated here at ATS in April 2007, the title was :
4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7 (21 pages)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

May 2007, the title was :
WTC 7 was nuked (too) (1 page)
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
From my thread "William Rodriguez, his oral story compared to other recordings." :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

More thoughts from the past about explosions.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Then, when your curiosity is sparked by this exchange of thoughts, find all the other, just as interesting thought exchanges by using ATS Search with either these words :
seismic "LaBTop"
or these :
thermobaric "LaBTop"


If you're interested by curious thoughts, then here's a curious thought for you- why is it that none of the million or so people in New York City remembers any earthquake happening on 9/11 just before the towers collapsed? That IS your point, isn't it? That the impact of the towers into the ground and the tremors recorded at seismic stations elsewhere are unrelated?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Why is it that none of these alternate theories can gain enough traction to draw a majority consenus?
Lack of proof.

For a long time it was thermite now it seems to be thermobaric.

This 911 conspiracy keeps spinning in little circles. Like a tempest in a teapot.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If you're interested by curious thoughts, then here's a curious thought for you- why is it that none of the million or so people in New York City remembers any earthquake happening on 9/11 just before the towers collapsed? That IS your point, isn't it? That the impact of the towers into the ground and the tremors recorded at seismic stations elsewhere are unrelated?


Are you really insinuating that?
Did you read my work at ALL?

Of course they are tightly related. I never said something else.
One thing I ever said was, that all seismic records could be falsified, but that I do not believe that, since NIST was so busy to "disappear" all their sub reports regarding seismic subjects. The truth tried to get out.
Only the original LDEO report from the first week, did they maintain in their reports. But not all the NIST acquainted scientists their seismic work, that once was publicized by NIST in sub-reports.

And there wasn't an earthquake in all of New York, as you try to ridicule my work, there was a trembling a few seconds before collapses, also felt by peoples feet, recorded by many camera's on tripods, I just posted lots of links to all these tremors in this and other threads.
And the event was at the southern tip of Manhattan, a small peninsula, not all over New York.

You try to magnify the real tremors to huge earthquakes.
That's deliberate changing others arguments. Those are propaganda techniques, Dave.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


No Sam, its no lack of proof.
Its simply lack of comprehension of seismic subjects on your side.

Otherwise you would have understood already for many years that the evidence was laid before us in the first week already by LDEO, who at that time thought that WTC 7's seismogram fitted neatly in their acceptance of a gravitational collapse. Because they worked backwards to the result they wanted to arrive at.
They and we had no comparing event, with another atomic clock stamp, to work with, so nobody else could prove them wrong at that time.

Until years later I found that little gem, the NIST timestamped Nicholas Cianca photo from the east penthouse roof of WTC 7 starting to sink down.
That timestamp at first made it possible to show that the appearance on their seismogram, of those first huge seismic peak of tremors in Manhattan took place before that sinking down of that penthouse on top of WTC 7..!

And even the greatest simpleton can see that that first group of amplitudes peaks, depicts a far greater energy than the following group of amplitudes peaks, depicting the total collapse of a building like WTC 7, consisting of hundreds of huge and heavy steel beams and columns.

While the official theory tried to convince us by NIST, that only column 79 broke and started the global collapse.

EDIT : WTC 7 collapse, the seismic signal from the penthouse collapse arrived at the 24 sec position :



AGAIN, explain to me those first group of signals of 22 nm/s, which indicate an event effectuating a MUCH stronger force on the NY upper crust, then the following TOTAL collapse of a 47 story building ! Illogical is the word, if we don't introduce an EXTRA FORCE !

Can you imagine anything else than a big energy releasing event, which we normally connect to explosive forces?
edit on 8/12/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by LaBTop
 

While googling it myself though I heard mention of "corrosion" as related to its use. And I am wondering if this is the same corrosion seen on the steel and with the toasted cars? Does setting off this thing corrode stuff unnaturally? Can you address this one thing for me?

Also, take a look at this pic:



I'm wondering about the vertical smoke plumes covering the entire sides of both tower 1 (left) and building 7 (right). What's going on here? Like tower one was supposedly hit by a plane and you can see it smoking from that location, but still its side is frothing up one entire side from the ground. People could say well it's the wind, the tower windows didn't open so what else could it be? Maybe.

Anyway, the same effect can be seen on building 7. Now I haven't plotted wind direction or any wind tunnel effects it just seems strange that there would be head to toe smoke on one side of each building like that. Tower one smoking from the top, well ok. But building 7 had only some floors on fire lower down, again, not sure of the locations, but why would both buildings exhibit this smoke pattern?

Do all high rise fire scenarios exhibit this smoking pattern? I'll have to check.

Is there anything with the TB angle that would cause this as any kind of prepping of the buildings? Is something being spread throughout the entire building first from the basements through the ducts or something. Can you address this with what you know about TB, thanks.


Cheers


The corrosive effect of thermobarics I do not know off, but we know from the USGS reports that the dust and thus also the water in the Bathtub area and around that, was very caustic. And don't forget that 4 Fire Boats were pumping for many days the sea water (salty and corrosive) to the FDNY pumpers.
And there's also the stripping effect from such a huge collapse, lots of paint protective layers have been grounded off.
The cars that were so strangely burned seem to me a result from burning or hot debris fallen on them, thus igniting the flammable interior of them, or even their gas tanks. I have seen many cars that were burned on the road in my long life, and all of them looked the same as those in Manhattan on 9/11. Partially stripped from all paint where the fire heated the metal.
And as soon as possible, all these wrecks shattered all over the streets were towed away to further away street sides, and parking lots, to make room for emergency vehicles and then those big cranes and bulldozers.
I am afraid that advocates from "the burned car mystery" forgot to check most photo's their date stamps, most of these were photographed in their new parking places in the days after they were towed there. They were even stacked to make more room available for the insurance inspectors that had to check which owners were to be paid for their loss.



That smoke is a natural chimney effect caused by the prevailing NE winds that day. Those buildings acted like bad shaped erect wings. And loads of the smoke from the intense fires from the lower WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 buildings were thus sucked up by the chimney effect.

That smoke emitted nearly all day from these lower buildings around WTC 7, so, no, that's surely no side effect from the use of thermobaric bombs.
If something was being spread throughout the entire building first from the basements through the ducts or something, for sure not all day long.

A TB acts in a few stages, following each other in only a few seconds max in total for the old models, to milliseconds for the newer models. It's how fast and how far the initial gaseous cloud can be dispersed that is determining how fast they detonation follows after the dispersal. And remember, a TB is not a Fuel/Air bomb, that one is much older, from before 1981 when TB's were developed.

And you have to realize what you saw when WTC 7 blew up. You saw four overwhelmingly intact facades sink down all the way towards out-of-sight positions from those cameras that were held far away from it, more than 4 blocks away.
I have never seen ANY video nor photo of the lower floors of WTC 7 during collapse, we were definitely not meant to record that. I am curious if there are hidden people who saw it but are afraid.

They went to extremes to be sure that all inhabitants around WTC 7 who had a free view on it, were all forced out of their apartments or offices before 17:20 PM.
There were also an awful lot of FBI, IRS, CIA, NYPD agents who made sure (were ordered to) that witnesses who came out of the two Twin Towers were quickly lead away from news reporters, as can be seen in one video posted lately. I think it's the Marlboro Man one. Two FBI agents drag a witness talking to a reporter away at his arm, in the middle of a sentence I would like to have heard completed



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
I'll cross link this post, so you all can read my bolded text in there too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is very applicable to this thread too :

Didn't you found it curious that when the WTC's collapsed, you saw floors that just a second ago emitted immense amounts of BLACK soot loaded smoke, exploded in perfect ring shaped WHITE smoke emitting floor exteriors, and that one after the other, downwards through all the plane impacted floors that were already totally burned out. And that most of the huge WTC water tanks meant for the whole towers, were situated on the top double-floor mechanical floors? And the rest of them in the other two double-floor mechanical floors? These mechanical floors were reinforced enormously, they should have halted or delayed a gravitational collapse, they did not at all.
And the mechanical floor in WTC 7 was situated just above the CONED electrical station, where the whole building was build over. And there were also huge water tanks. And from these lower floors did the WTC 7 collapse initiate, says NIST. On the roof were also water tanks standing inside the two penthouses, and on other floors too.

HE's placed on the bottom of these tanks would send their explosive power downwards, to the roof beams, which must have been blown first to effect such a neat sinking down of all four facades, like a piston going down in a cylinder, with nearly no deformation at all on its way down.
edit on 8/12/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
You know, it's eerily silent on Jeff Prager's thesis about those micro neutron nukes.
How come?
Can't you bring some good contra argumentation to this debate table?
Especially on his DUST 1 book, pages 19-42.

There is a clear lockstep in all those elements found by the USGS.
To fresh up your memories, here's one of my first posts on this board about it, already on 26 July 2005 :

Title : The Complete 9/11 Timeline (interactive).
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The mean concentrations of some heavy metals in the WTC dust samples (such as antimony, molybdenum, zinc, copper, lead, chromium, manganese, nickel, and barium) are relatively high compared to their mean concentrations in natural soils from the eastern United States.



LT : -Notes-
1. Why were no samples taken by the USGS from the actual WTC site, only from the perimeter?
2. Why were a lot of samples not represented as bars on the charts? There was ample space on the sides of the maps.
3. Why were just 2 persons send on the evenings of 16 and 17 Sept 2001 to take just 37 samples on ground level, to calibrate the airplane sampling ? They say they were in such a hurry to provide the NY citizens with solid data about what exactly the dust and dust cloud contained. Then why did they not send much more personnel afterwards to take extensive extra samples?
4. Why is the bar chart of the first publicized (pdf) USGS report different compared to the last html version? The first one has a convenient addition, the mean concentrations data in natural soils from the eastern United States. Btw, both are online and can be found on their website. The scientists of the USGS seem to me dedicated and open minded individuals, but were restricted in their research goals by the White House. Why?


One remark by me from that first post here, you should all take to heart, and adhere adamantly to it :

If you want to present the truth, you should never hide unwelcome facts.

I see too many Truth seekers avoid certain touchy subjects lately. Especially the "thermites".
A sprayed-on thermitic demolition paint can never have the seemingly gravitational, fast and top down demolition effect on both Twin Towers as we saw happen. It's simply too slow burning or exploding, and too much of it needed.
Do not close your eyes to unwelcome facts. We see that too much from uninformed official story followers also.

And never forget one immense important fact :
If you succeed to initiate a building collapse, gravity will do the rest for you.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
You know, it's eerily silent on Jeff Prager's thesis about those micro neutron nukes.
How come?
Can't you bring some good contra argumentation to this debate table?


I hate to say it Labtop, and no offence intended, but nobody from your side really cares. Will a more complete theory help them in any way? They'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Your thread is just reading and understanding, that's not really in the interests of shouting about your personal theory at every stage so you're unlikely to generate much dialog.

When you want 'debunkers' to post and discuss, just say so. Until then I'll let the truth movement work together as best they can.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I realize already a few years that when I post new or old information that doesn't fit into the, fixed on one conspiracy theory, belief system of my readers, they tend to change their attitude towards me.
It doesn't bother me, since only real true arguments will win them over.

And when it turns out that I am mistaken, I just as easily abandon my former belief in favor of a better argument.
So, "put your best leg in front", should be a familiar expression, if you like to ad constructive critique to this monologue of mine.


Gimme a few minutes, have to post three long ones again.

PS :
Honestly said, I post my material mostly for the historical record, since I expect this website to last quite some years to come, and perhaps in that period, some material that is so simple that everyone will understand it, will rise to attention.
Meanwhile, it's nice to see some members still can catch up with me. And add constructive pro or contra arguments. I welcome CONSTRUCTIVE critique.
edit on 8/12/12 by LaBTop because: PS.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
www.angelfire.com...


Previously, the NIST awarded a contract to Ramon Gilsanz and his New York engineering firm to do computer simulations of the WTC7 collapse.
Dropped from the NIST website was the report titled "Structural Analysis of the response of World Trade Center 7 to debris damage and fire" (denoted NCSTAR 1-6F) by Gilsanz and nine others. No explanation was given, though presumably this report was to have been used as evidence supporting the NIST theory.

A 2002 Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, report on WTC7 co-authored by Gilsanz said the idea that fire triggered WTC7's collapse had "low probability."

Also omitted was "Analysis of Sept. 11, 2001, seismogram data" by W. Kim.
(LaBTop : from Jan 2006)

Won-Young Kim of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory had previously done analyses of 9/11 seismographic data.
(LaBTop : this Sept 2001 analysis. )

The government's stance on the collapse of the 47-floor WTC7 has raised eyebrows of experts, including researchers working with Gilsanz on a FEMA report, and, more recently, a Brigham Young University physics professor.

Jones and his students clocked a downward sequence of blasts of smoke ejected from WTC7 windows at two-tenths of a second apart.

Some have attributed World Trade Center belches of smoke to dust expelled as floors crashed downward onto other floors. However, the basic gravity equation (y = 1/2gt2) proves that in two-tenths of a second a floor could have dropped no more than eight inches. A six-foot fall takes at least six-tenths of a second.


REFERENCES
1. www.911scholars.org...
Different times for plane impacts, also at page 7 the "correction" for the NIST video records by additional 5 seconds, which is wrong, since based on false logic. These 5 seconds are part of those 11 to 17 seconds held back by 9/11 military editors in the main networks editing rooms. Probably to filter explosion sounds out. And deletion of unwanted material, or they just parked it on a HD, for immediate review and when found not suspicious, they let it loose again on the global audience.

2. www.spacedaily.com...
Prof Terry Wallace, seismic precision of 0.2 seconds.

3. www.nist.gov... NIST

4. www.nist.gov... NIST

5. www.nist.gov...
(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 1-8)

6. www.nist.gov...
(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapter 9-Appendices A-M)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Both Ref. 5 and 6 are not the below mentioned Won-Young Kim NIST Jan 2006 revised seismic report, which is TOTALLY absent from all Draft reports listed by NIST in Ref.4.


The below text is from Ref. 1. :


NIST SPONSORED RE-ANALYSIS SEISMIC TIME STUDY
Additionally, NIST contracted in 2005 for the services of Dr. Won-Young Kim of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) to re-analyze the original seismic data and times that were issued by LDEO back in 2001 (Kim was instrumental in the issuance of the original times).
This new study resulted in Kim issuing revised seismic times in 2005 that added three seconds to both of the 2001 originally calculated times for aircraft “impacts”.
The revised times were 8:46:29 and 9:02:57.
[Reference report: “NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation, Chapter 3, pages 22-24] See Table 3-1

TABLE 3-1 (see for it, Ref. 1.)

NIST's determination of  8:46:30 time of first “impact” is artificial. It is not only erroneous, but may be specious if time manipulation is the motive.  This phony time for AA Flt 11 is directly contradicted by the statement made by the NTSB and is not supported by the radar data supplied by the NTSB. The last radar signal from the aircraft before impact was received at 8:46:40, ten seconds after the time that  NIST now says is when the aircraft  impacted the Tower.

One wonders again if the NIST 2005 contract with Dr. Kim to re-analyze the seismic times is also an attempt at time manipulation in order to find credibility for the bogus 8:46:30 NIST time. An audit by independent seismological experts to determine the authenticity of the revised seismic times would be in order to resolve this matter. It would be worth doing as this concerns the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people.






top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join