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.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 23
13
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. The columns were coated with dust, and dropped straight down out of the dust cloud.




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I originally posted this is another thread and thought it was relevant to this one as well:


For those that don't believe the WTC was brought down by demolition, let me present more of my case. These buildings HAD to come down. It was the psychological catalyst for the people's support for the "war on terror". It's Psychology 101. Something that horrible will stick in a person's mind until the day he or she dies. It could not be left up to chance that those buldings would still be standing after that. Five thousand dead as opposed to only a few hundred also has a psychological effect on the people.

Some on here who disagree with myself and others that there was demolition set off to bring the towers down will say that it would take too much time and planning and drilling and wiring and whatnot. Those people would also say that the buildings were built to collapse upon themselves anyways. OK, I hear ya. People in my corner would say that the buildings were built to withstand the impact of an airplane without collapsing, so what gives??? Let me pose this scenario to you, the planes only have to fly into a general area of the building. This creates a diversion of devastation, smoke and fire. The domolition was only set up to take out the supports on a few floors above the impact. The smoke and fire would camoflauge the demolitions set up on the outside of the building, and of course we wouldn't be able to see what was going on in the interior anyway. If strategically placed demolitions take out the supports on, let's say, three floors, the weight of the top of the building collapsing through those three floors would be enough to set of the total collapse of the building. This is very plausible in my estimation and takes into account both sides of the argument.

Peace



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This is ridiculous. The columns were coated with dust, and dropped straight down out of the dust cloud.



I've seen it in live video... in 640x480. Didn't look like dust at all. And the commentator's reaction to the dustspire was embarassing, too.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
This thread has gotten so long I doubt anybody new to it is going to read through the whole thing now, but do a search on google for wtc+squibs, you will notice that the number of hits went from tens of thousands, to less than 1,000 in about a year, right about the time google incoporated come to think of it. Watch the videos, you can pretty clearly see the squibs, indicated by lateral ejection of material preceeding the collapse. Anybody who hasn't read this thread needs to, it is one of the better WTC threads going.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
People in my corner would say that the buildings were built to withstand the impact of an airplane without collapsing, so what gives???


They did withstand the impact without collapsing. They were not able to withstand both the impact and the subsequent fires.

The structural damage caused by both was cumulative.




Let me pose this scenario to you, the planes only have to fly into a general area of the building. This creates a diversion of devastation, smoke and fire. The domolition was only set up to take out the supports on a few floors above the impact.


how did they know before hand which exact floors would be impacted?

Look at a picture of the buildings before 9-11. pick a pointing the upper third of each building. Quick, can you tell me exactly what floor that is?



The smoke and fire would camoflauge the demolitions set up on the outside of the building,


Do you have any idea how loud demolition charges are? They would have heard them all over Manhattan that day.



and of course we wouldn't be able to see what was going on in the interior anyway. If strategically placed demolitions take out the supports on, let's say, three floors, the weight of the top of the building collapsing through those three floors would be enough to set of the total collapse of the building. This is very plausible in my estimation and takes into account both sides of the argument.

Peace


On the other hand if the damaged caused by the impact was combined with the loss of structural strength caused by the fire, the same thing would happen. right?

So which is more plausible?

That the impact caused direct damage to the structure and the fire further weakened it as determined by structural analysis by experts in that field,
or
that some one knew exactly what floor the planes would hit, rigged the explosives on those floors without any one noticing, (they would have had to access the core shafts, not an easy thing to do), the explosives were not prematurely set off by the shock of the impact or the subsequent fires, the wiring/trigger mechanism to the explosives survived the impact and fires, and so on and so on.




[edit on 27-5-2005 by HowardRoark]


dh

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
This is too long to really go through and the main modulator is Howard, who seems to have far too much time on his hands
Realistically, the towers appear to have been brought down either by a nuclear explosive or by an interferometric type weapon. Both impossible to prove, though the latter would best explain the disintegration of the radio mast and much other physical matter, including humans
Not, like so much of what occurs, really arguable
Based on assumptions drawn from observation and contentious knowledge
Draw lines between the dots and draw conclusions
The endless minutiae arguments are just a diversion, drawing you into the subsections, and wresting your observation from the overall plot



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
This is one of the best threads I've seen so far concerning the afformentioned issues and questions. All I have to say for now it way to go Twitchy! And Roarke, as usual you are spinning your wheels and not convincing anyone of much of anything. I've been away on some travel but back and trying to get caught up. Just got done reading this thread and might have a little bit to say later but I think Twitch pretty much summed things up. One thing I want to mention for now is the WTC fire that happened in 1975 which is very improtant in any debate concerning 911. Here is a link:

www.infowars.com...

So Twitch, what do you think of this fire?

There are many other sources on this, as Twitchy would say, GOOGLE it!

Oh and one more thing.. I've read a bunch of ludicrous ideas and theories on how building 7 fell without explosives. One thing people don't seem to take into consideration is the possibility of "partial" collapses. One prime example of a partial collapse is the federal Murrah building from the 1995 oklahoma bombing. How many supporting collumns did that building have? According to Roarke, if you weaken just one little itty bitty part of the building the rest just HAS to come down too!
such BULL. Of course, coming from someone who I doubt truly understands the difference between regular concrete and reinforced concrete "composite'...... No one can sit here and tell me with a straight face that building 7 came down so evenly without being exploded "systematically". One other thing I would like to see more people debate also is the cause of molten steel found at the base of each building in question. Thermite is known to cause this. I think Roarke said something to the effect that thermite could not caused the well known lingering hot spots which is bull. Even though a thermite reaction is not a long one relatively speaking it is HOT enough to melt steel in a -short- amount of time. WHY do you think demoltion experts use it?! Any engineer or otherwise will understand that the hotter you get something, especially if you melt it, the LONGER it's going to stay hot or melted.. DUH And not to mention the insulating effects from all the tons of debris that fell on the basement areas of the building where molten steel was found. The fly over thermal scans of the area after the event by Nasa tell the story.
I think everyone will aggree with me that 911 was indeed a conpiracy but I think the real million dollar question is WHO ALL was involved and what else was used besides airplanes to brings these buildings down? I mean come ON guys? It's obvious that theres more here than meets the eye. I desperately want to think that our government (to any degree) was not involved but I have STRONG reason to be suspicious and if our government was? may GOD have mercy on us all because if you think 911 was bad, wait until you see the next act.



[edit on 28-5-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
TX, are you an engineer?

How many structural engineers or architects support your demoltion theory?



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
TX, are you an engineer?

How many structural engineers or architects support your demoltion theory?


And how many laws of physics support your theories Roark?



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
You've got that back assward, twitch, the laws of physics don't support your theory.


Why is it that architects and engineers all over the world have no problems with the way thatt he buildngs collapsed?

Structural engeneers understand more about physics and material science than you will ever hope to.

Yet you seem to think that you know more then they do. Why is that?



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Actually Roarke, whether I'm an engineer or not really doesn't matter in this particular discussion. I don't HAVE to be an engineer to see the self evident or understand what OTHER engineers have said and written. And when you say the laws of physics don't support Twitch's theories? That's just plain laughable. THEY DO.. Go back and read the thread and look around. The writing is on the wall dude.. READ IT.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
The seismic readings were more consistent with an underground nuclear explosion than they were a collapsing building roark. And you still haven't explained why Marvin Bush's security company pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out the buildings the weekend before the collapse, you know during the mysterious and "unprecedented power down" of the buildings.


You're a fine debater roark, I have alot mroe respect for you than I do alot of the right wingers here, but there's no way WTC was not a demolition job man. Yes it was a footprint collapse. As demolitions for a building of that size, and under the circumstances that the explosives were probably placed, that was what would have been in the world of demolitions, termed a success.
You know what got me started on the whole WTC thing, when I read that the same company that demolished the remains of the Murrah Fed. building was contracted to clean up the WTC. That little side piece in the news made me start researching.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
Actually Roarke, whether I'm an engineer or not really doesn't matter in this particular discussion.


Oh, yes it does matter. It goes straight to the heart of the matter. As a layman, you see things that you only think you understand.

Structural engineers and architects have the proper training and experience in what make a building stand up and what makes it fall down. These people look at the collapses of the buildings and they see the basic principles of physics and engineering science that they study at work. They don't see evidence of explosives, they see buildings exposed to stresses beyond their design limits. They understand what happened to those buildings, you don't.



I don't HAVE to be an engineer to see the self evident or understand what OTHER engineers have said and written.


Structural engineers design buildings. If they make a mistake, then people die. If those buildings were brought down by explosives, then it would be self evident to the structural engineers and architects around the world.

And since you are interested in what other engineers have written, how about reading this




And when you say the laws of physics don't support Twitch's theories? That's just plain laughable. THEY DO.. Go back and read the thread and look around. The writing is on the wall dude.. READ IT.


The writing says that you, twitchy, and all of the other WTC conspiracy supporters don't have a clue.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
The seismic readings were more consistent with an underground nuclear explosion than they were a collapsing building roark.


Ah, another example of ignorance embraced.

Are you claiming that the "The seismic readings were more consistent with an underground nuclear explosion than they were a collapsing building?"

What is your qualification to make that claim? Are you a seismologist? Are you even a geologist?

Are you basing this on Chris Bollyn's article? Since when is he an expert? he is nothing more that a leftist kook.


And you still haven't explained why Marvin Bush's security company pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out the buildings the weekend before the collapse,


What's to explain? The only reference to these dogs is that hey were on site for two weeks only in response to some telephone threats. Were they supposed to be there indefinitely? What difference would it make if the dogs were there or not?



you know during the mysterious and "unprecedented power down" of the buildings.


Which is not that uncommon if you are trying to upgrade the electrical systems in a 30 year old building. There is only one source for this story and even that source is inconstant in details.

For instance, the originator of this story, Scott Forbes has stated the following:



2) Was there a similar event in the north tower?

Not to my knowledge.

3) I've pulled more Communications Cable than I could measure at this time and I have NEVER been notified of a complete power shutdown for such on event.... If that were the actual Truth....please, tell me, how the Technicians that were performing the service had power for the Equipment, needed LIghting, and necessary Test Gear? Somethings are Battery Powered....some are not....

I'm afraid I cannot provide information on this. The only information I can give is that we were notified of a power outtage in the top half of the South Tower, scheduled for Saturday 9/8 and Sunday 9/9 2001, some 2 or 3 weeks prior to the event. All companies above the 52nd floor would have been affected. We understood that essential electrical engineering work was being carried out. Engineers were on site over that weekend, as were myself and many of my colleagues. The WTC was a huge building and there must have been multiple power supplies, not just one single source, but I cannot provide details about that.

4) This story is very suspicious. There were a good many offices in the WTC, even on the upper floors, that absolutely required 24/7 operation, including connections to overseas computers and the like, and they would have raised hell if the building pulled the plug on them. Among other things, the top of the WTC had the broadcasting towers of several NYC radio and TV stations - and at least one or two engineers there checking the gauges round-the-clock. This Scott Forbes, assuming he's not fictional, apparently is not a high-tech computer geek and may have misinterpreted something that was, in fact, NOT a whole-building power-down but maybe something localized to just his company or his floor. Possible?

So many people have been suspicious of the information I have provided and have questioned my authenticity and veracity. Indeed I have received many abusive emails. All I can say to this is that I do exist and what I mentioned did happen. I work in technology and so some people may call me a computer geek ... but believe me I did not misinterpret the facts that there was power outtage for around 36 hours and that all of our systems had to be shutdown and restarted. I agree with your point that many global corporations resided in the WTC and so a power outtage would have been very, very inconvenient. I work for one of these organisations so I can validate that point absolutely. It was also highly unusal to have the majority of technology site on site over that weekend to ensure that all systems were shutdown and restarted successfully. I also agree with your point about the television, radio and communications masts and cameras on top of the tower.


So, obviously it was not a total power down like he implies, but rather a selective power down. I sincerely doubt that he walked up 48 floors to his office. The elevator power, the emergency power, the power to the broadcast systems were obviously not afected. I suspect that this was an upgrade to improve the "clean power" source for these floors.

Also note the fact that the engineering staff as well as the technical staff for the tenants were on site during this power down.

so what does this all mean?


Absolutely nothing.




You're a fine debater roark, I have alot mroe respect for you than I do alot of the right wingers here, but there's no way WTC was not a demolition job man. Yes it was a footprint collapse.

Which given the sheer size of the building, 200 feet by 200 feet, and the structural design that is is the only way that they would have collapsed.



You know what got me started on the whole WTC thing, when I read that the same company that demolished the remains of the Murrah Fed. building was contracted to clean up the WTC. That little side piece in the news made me start researching.


So? They are good at what they do, which is tearing down buildings and cleaning up the mess. In addition, the experience with the Murrah building probably helped them land the WTC contract. Previous experience is a huge bonus in situations like this. It is also probable that they had previous work history for the city or the Port Authority. Hell I've worked along side them as they subcontracted a job in Chicago. They have a good reputation.



So what?



[edit on 29-5-2005 by HowardRoark]


dh

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
In any profession peer pressure prevents people from questioning the accepted status quo even if, as often is, this is a simple handed down factoid from central government
Scientists and experts throughout history have been scorned, rejected, expelled from their work, murdered even, for speaking out or knowing too much
Recent examples are increasing exponentially
In a world driven crazy by the governmental agencies that seek to own us, most experts and scientists will keep their heads down and go along with things to keep their jobs and salaries
Howard Rouarks insistence on belief in expert silence is nonsense
We can believe better in what we understand and see of events without any bullying to accept the words, or lack of them from experts
There are burgeoning numbers of people who have understood what's going on and are no longer willing to be bullied into believing the word of so called experts by those who are all over the place trying to keep them in line
The self-policing tendency - baa-baa, woof woof, 'keep in line you stray sheep' HR - sheep-police attorney general



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
In any profession peer pressure prevents people from questioning the accepted status quo


Very true. Further, such peer pressure could subconsciously prevent people from considering such conclusions. To them the idea that the world trade center was not simply brought down by terrorist piloted airplanes is insane, and thus would feel certain that a logical explanation for abnormalities exists.

One more thing, experts don’t always agree with each other. Something that should show that experts are not infallible.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
So are you saying that engineers and architects around the world, whos jobs depend on understanding what holds up a building and what can cause that structural system to fail, are so craven and cowardly that they blindly accept the NIST findings without considering them in light of their own knowlege and experience?

This would include engineers and architect in Asia, Japan, India, Europe, Russia, etc.

[sarcasm]Wow. It is amasing how that "Peer Pressure" works. [/sarcasm]




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Howard, when you say

"Oh, yes it does matter. It goes straight to the heart of the matter. As a layman, you see things that you only think you understand. "

No it doesn't matter. I have to tell you again (I feel like I'm rubbing the dog's nose in his own poop) that I'm a big proponent of the self evident. I've been studying that particular NIST report for sometime and it proves nothing to me, or anyone else for that matter. (Including an engineering friend of mine) It deffinitely does a fancy job of showing that the buildings did collapse along with 'probable' collapse sequences and hypothesis. But that's all it is, a report about probabilities and hypothesis. Since there was really no "real" investigation done 'after' the collapse and everything was quickly toted off to only God knows where then alot of empirical data is missing. My GOD, I'm not an engineer and I know the difference between a report based on empirical data and one based on probabilities and hypothesis. I'll always side with sound principles but principles WITHOUT empirical data pertaining to 'cause" are for the most part, and in this situation particularly, useless. What a concept.
There are too many independent sources of data from eyewitnesses and personel that were on the scene that state many different explosions were heard and "experienced" prior to the collapse so you simply can not rule out the use of explosives. Explosives could have and probably did cause all the bowing/sagging/and eventual collapse of the buildings.

There are alot of credible engineers that are 'very' suspicious about these buildings collapsing. I'm not going to post any links here, look around.. These legitimate engineers are EVERYWHERE.

And what about building 6?? You never really seem to talk about that one much. I've got a video of cnn covereage showing a MAJOR 'self evident' 'obvious' explosion around building 6 WELL before the two towers collapsed. What do you have to say about that Roarke?

I WILL post this one link for you mainly because it has a picture, one of many depictions you can find on the net. of how the core was constructed. Notice how it implies the box collumns being covered in concrete. It states "A reinforced core runs vertically through the tower" I do stress 'vertically" It then it shows a picture of steel beams covered in concrete. Good God man what were the box collumns really covered with??? And please Howard.. Unless you've been to the WTC and seen these box collums for yourself please don't even respond to that. Notice also the picture of building 6 after the destruction.. Notice how it looks like the core of it was just 'blown' clean out? Very suspicious huh? Kind of self evident huh?

www.letsroll911.org...

And most importantly:

www.chiefengineer.org...

Hmm.. suspicious explosions cited from a very credible source. One of 'many' credible sources. Care to discount them all? I didn't think so.



[edit on 1-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They did withstand the impact without collapsing. They were not able to withstand both the impact and the subsequent fires.
The structural damage caused by both was cumulative.


What fire ?
Im woundering how can someone survive under the intense heat that "melted" the steel.

You still under the info released the few days after the event.

And, too boring to read your statements....simply with no foundation.
It seems doesnt matter how many proof ppl show you will still believe the crap governement tell you...im woundering if you do not work for them.
Check the new documentaries and researches around and stop spreading this unsenseless thoughts you want us to believe.

This is what i have to tell you.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano

What fire ?
Im woundering how can someone survive under the intense heat that "melted" the steel.

You still under the info released the few days after the event.



You still seem to be under the erroneous assumption that the steel melted prior to the building collapse. This is not true no one, but the most die hard idiot, still believes it.

As for the fire, that picture is but one moment in the progress of the fire through the building.

For comparison, see page 46, of this report.

The picture you posted was taken shortly after the impact, before the fires inside had time to fully develop.

Also from that report:

10:06 am NYPD aviation unit advises everybody to evacuate the area in the vicinity of Battery Park City and states that, about 15 floors from the top, it is totally glowing red on the inside and collapse was inevitable.

NYPD officer advises that it is isn’t going to take much longer before the North tower comes down and to pull emergency vehicles back from the building.
10:21 am NYPD aviation unit first reports that the top of the tower might be leaning, then confirms that it is buckling and leaning to the South. NYPD aviation unit reports that the North tower is leaning to the Southwest and appears to be buckling in the Southwest corner. NYPD officer advises that all personnel close to the building pull back three blocks in every direction.

10:28 am NYPD aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly. NYPD officer reports that the tower is collapsing.


The key thing is, the fires cause thermal expansion, softening and buckling of the structural members. Combine this with the extensive physical damage caused by the impact and the collapse was inevitable.

Take a wooden yardstick and put one end on the ground. Hold it perfectly straight and press down on it without allowing it to buckle. It can hold a fair amount of weight that way. Now push the middle of the stick out of true an inch or so and pres down on the top end again. How much weight will it hold now? Not as much. The stick buckles outward. That is what happened to the exterior columns of the WTC. The fires and the damage to the interior floors caused the exterior columns to buckle.



new topics




 
13
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join