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: 25
13
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


indeed.
why then, did the top part crumble first? the floors up to 78ish are the ones that are supporting the alleged big chunk which will serve as a piston with which to crumble the building. this big piston has no weight on top of it. why is it the first thing to dissolve?
the top part(spyre) was nearly flush with the compromised floors before those floors began to cascade in near free fall.
so in short. the bottom three quarters of the building were completely unaffected as the upper floors crashed down onto them. it wasn't until this big alleged piston had turned to dust that the bottom part started to fall. watch the video.


Well, first of all, we can watch that video till the cows come home and not be able to tell what is going on behind the debris cloud. So, I don't know where your confidence is coming from on that claim. But, when the initial impact occurred - that is the top 25-30 floors collapsed down, there is no reason that when the impact occurred it could not have caused floor collapses in both directions.

To say that the "piston on top" had no weight is wrong. The bottom floor of the piston on top had about a 25-30 story building on it - and a BIG 25-30 story building at that!

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Valhall]




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   
i dont know if this has been posted but check out this video from Alex Jones,

Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
i dont know if this has been posted but check out this video from Alex Jones,

Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack


Thank you, infinite. Thank you for presenting the epitome of how the "conspiracy snake-oil salesmen" work. I just endured that clip to watch Alex Jones do absolutely no research, make propagandist, unbacked statements, and take statements out of context to back his obsession.

Questions about why this keeps happening...

1. Why, when there is a whole slew of widowed "wives of firemen" from 9/11, did Alex Jones not interview one of them instead of taping an angry old fat woman's anecdotal story of those widows claims??? Why?

2. Why didn't Alex Jones interview Silverstein and ask what he meant by "pull it" instead of taking edited crops out of the PBS documentary - using his words out of context (Silverstein explained right before that statement that "due to the loss of life that day" the decisionw as made to pull



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
You might want to check this out, its very detailed as well


Strategic Explosives In The Twin Towers: The Evidence



its an interesting look at it. Im my personal view, i believe that bombs were planted inside the world trade center to bring both buildings down.

More Evidence of Demolitions In WTC?


Imagine. According to the media/government fable, it was hot enough to soften the steel and cause the building to collapse, however, as is evident from the picture and video, it was not hot enough to singe her hair.




Here is a still shot of the woman waving from the impact hole of the North Tower. No one from the North Tower impact levels, or above, survived.



If it was hot enough to melt the steel, how come it wasn't hot enough to kill the people within the impact holes

(sorry if this has been covered)

[edit on 3-6-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Well, infinite, according to the NIST investigation (supported by photographic and video evidence) the fires started on the far side from the impact where the fuel soaked debris (i.e. office furniture, building materials, and plastic aircraft cabin components were piled up due to the impact. The fire then spread in typical fire behavior around to the other portions of the floors that were less directly affected by the impact.

That woman is standing at the impact hole, where fresh cool air was entering the building. And you have no idea what degree of heat she might have been experiencing.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Well, at this point, I can't figure which is more morbid - to make insinuations that diminish what the people in the WTC towers suffered, or to just go ahead and use them as evidence to try to make people accept reality.

So here goes...If you don't want to see the images - don't click on the links because they have dead people in the midst of their dying in them.

Please note that the jumper in this photograph is burned.

www.geocities.com...

Please note that the floor just above this jumper's level in this pic is glowing red hot as well as two floors above that, as well as two floors above that.

www.geocities.com...

Please note that the floor just above the gaping wound this guy jumped from is glowing red hot.

www.geocities.com...

Please note that one of these people appears to be on fire.

www.geocities.com...

Please note that opting to plummet 70+ floors to the ground usually indicates there's something where you are at, that makes that decision the more positive action to take.

www.geocities.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Wow, I normally don't use those that fast, but there have been some outstanding posts on these threads lately.

Valhall, your post is brutally effective.

Many of us tend to forget, over time, the enormous loss in lives that occurred on 9/11, and the horrific way in which they died.

To claim that there is an active conspiracy on the part of the U.S. government is to imply that the ranks of the people who work in government service from the elected officials, down to the bureaucratic office worker, form the highest offices in this country to the common fireman, are filled with sociopaths.

If there was any truth to the claims of explosives, there would be hundreds, if not thousands of people who were much more directly involved in the response actions and follow up investigations that would be saying so, not just a bunch of internet freaks who haven’t left their basement in a month.




[edit on 3-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
i have no problem with being morbid.

people die every day. one day, it will be me. my curiousity instantly asks me, 'what are you thinking as you plummet to your forced suicide'?

does any of this explain the molten steel in the basement?
does it explain how bush 'saw the first plane hit the tower' on television, when it wasn't on television?
does it explain why the greatest crime scene in history was stripped of evidence(the steel)?
does it explain why this evidence, simple scrap metal, was shipped to THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD? was there no scrap metal dealer in new york or elsewhere in america?
does it explain why a gag order was issued to firemen preventing them from giving personal testimony?
does it explain the HORRENDOUS performance of the most powerful, high-techiest army in the world?
does it explain how invasion plans for afghanistan were drawn up some six months earlier?
does it explain why the entire population of america was grounded, while the entire family of the already 'alleged terrorist' bin laden were flown out of the country?
does it explain how alleged terrorists that smashed into towers are still alive?
does it explain why FEMA, 'arrived monday night, and were ready to go first thing tuesday morning'?
does it explain tower seven?
does it explain the sudden anthrax(with US military grade anthrax) attacks on bush's more vocal opponents? (does it explain the 'mysterious' deaths of FORTY bio-scientist, most of whom work for the same company?)
does it explain why certain individuals made bold statements(seismic spikes, -lerner-lam, ....and controlled demo, -that mexican guy), only to retract them later. (duh)
does it explain how the media is ignoring all the allegations and court cases against bush, while pedalling the views of such infamous hate speakers as anne coulter and rush (into) limbo.
does it explain how the rights of americans have been stripped from them in front of their eyes as they proudly wave their flags yelling 'freedom, god bless america'.
does it explain why the cia cleared out popular mechanics just before the famous debunking article came out?

where is the outrage for the injustice against the families of the victims. they are touted as a poster child for the war on terrorism, yet HUNDREDS of them got together to try and apply american law to the glorious leader. they are being blatantly ignored by the media. i'm outraged, anyway. (madface)

and, once again, watch the video. the top part collapses nearly completely, and the bottom is unaffected. at this moment in time, the potential energy of the upper portion is mostly spent, and it has been COMPLETELY ABSORBED by the still standing 3/4 of the tower. there is not too much dust to see what i'm talking about. there is no smoke on the unaffected lower 3/4. the spyre/antenna at the top of the tower can be seen clearly through the smoke and marks the downward tradgectory and pathway of the 'piston'. it is the piston that breaks up during the initial collapse, NOT the majority of the tower, i.e. the floors that are getting the full brunt of the impact DON"T FAIL. i would expect the floors from say 75 down to be the first to 'break', as these floors are being hit with the full kinetic energy of the HUGE upper piece. once again, these floors DON'T BUDGE until the top part is nearly completely pulverized.

my list of unanwsered questions is just a sample. there are WAY more.
perhaps it's just easier to believe in 'magic bullets' and whatnot.
perhaps it easier to trust energy barons, nepotistic globalist nazis and secret police to run your 'democracy'.

have a happyocalypse.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
billybob

I'm with you brother!! I've stayed out of this argument for the most part because it will never be winnable....................EVER!!!!!

That list of questions you provided is pretty substantial and pretty supportive of a cover-up. The answers to those questions by those who oppose you will be something like "that's not what the media reported" or "that's not what the government agency's report concluded" or "prove it". I threw up my hands a while back. Life's too short man.

'They' provide the herd with lies heaped upon a false foundation, and the herd will control the herd. It's a time-tested process.

Peace


[edit on 3-6-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   


This article from Chief Engineer magazine presents eyewitness account of the moments after the first plane crash, and describes evidence of large explosions in the lobby, parking garage and subbasement levels of WTC-1 at the time of the crash

It contains some fascinating first-hand accounts of the events of September 11 as recounted by operating engineers on the scene. One of the most remarkable is the story of Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the first plane hit. Here are some excerpts:

At about 6:45 he went to the mechanical shop in the second subbasement, ate his breakfast and chatted with his co-workers who were also arriving for the normal 8:00 a.m. beginning of their shift. Mike’s assignment that day would be to continue constructing a gantry that would be used to pull the heads from the 2,500 ton chillers, located in the 6th sub- basement level of the tower. 49,000 tons of refrigeration equipment were located in the lower level of the tower. The 2,500 ton units were the smallest in use...


First-hand Accounts of Underground Explosions In The North Tower

Construction Worker Gives Another Account Of Underground Blasts In The WTC



Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being thrown to the ground by two explosions while in the fourth subbasement of the North Tower. The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls.


Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes



Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001.


WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures



The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."


The story just doesnt make sense. The building shouldnt have fallen, apparently they could of taken the hits and still be standing afterwards. Many reports suggest explosions and people hearing them, plus seeing them. This doesnt make sense.

Shouldn't the building of fallen outwards, not in on itself?



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

my list of unanwsered questions is just a sample. there are WAY more.
perhaps it's just easier to believe in 'magic bullets' and whatnot




No, that is what you are pushing...magic bullets.

Did you not see my post above that clearly shows that at least 3 floors up and 3 floors down from the impact floor were obviously at extreme temperatures? Do you not understand that when one floor (most likely the impact floor) gave that now we're looking at an almost 30 story building falling through as much as 60 feet? Can you not conceive of the kinetic energy involved in that? and that the inertia involved in that falling building was not going to stop? All it had to do was take out 10 feet - one floor - a floor whose mass would be added to the falling mass on the next 10 feet - one floor - and so forth and so on, all the way down to where your coveted melted steel landed. (I'm not sure where you going with that by the way.)



[edit on 6-3-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


This article from Chief Engineer magazine presents eyewitness account of the moments after the first plane crash, and describes evidence of large explosions in the lobby, parking garage and subbasement levels of WTC-1 at the time of the crash

It contains some fascinating first-hand accounts of the events of September 11 as recounted by operating engineers on the scene. One of the most remarkable is the story of Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the first plane hit. Here are some excerpts:

- - (Blah, Blah, Blah)



Instead of reading just the excerpts, why don’t you read the whole article?

All of these accounts of explosions in the basement were from the exploding fuel – air mix that fell down the elevator shafts when the planes impacted, the buildings collapsed much later.



Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Didn’t we just go over this a couple of pages ago? Air pressure from the collapsing floors, plus the movement of the exterior frames caused the windows to pop out. True demolition charges look and sound totally different. In fact there is no audio evidence to support the demolition charge claim.



WTC Construction Manager: Towers Were Designed to Take Numerous Plane Crashes


There was a terrific series of articles in the New York Times titled “The Height of Ambition.” Unfortunately it is only available for a fee. There were a few free versions on-line, but I cant seem to find them now. In any case, this article details the issues and criteria used in the design of the buildings. Based on the historical record, that quote above is wrong.


WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures


Sure, as long as the building was perfectly intact with no other structural damage. Furthermore, those certifications are based on the assumptions that the fireproofing survived the impact forces. If the fireproofing was knocked off (and any asbestos abatement worker will tell you how easy this is to do) then the tests and certifications are meaningless.


Shouldn't the building of fallen outwards, not in on itself?


Actually it did both. The building was 200 ft x 200 ft. It would have been physically imposible for the buildng to fall outside of its own envelope.

The center portion of the building fell downward. Portions of the exterior walls fell outward all over the place. That was the source of the structural damage to WTC 6 and WTC 7, and the Bankers Trust building, among others.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by billybob

my list of unanwsered questions is just a sample. there are WAY more.
perhaps it's just easier to believe in 'magic bullets' and whatnot




No, that is what you are pushing...magic bullets.

Did you not see my post above that clearly shows that at least 3 floors up and 3 floors down from the impact floor were obviously at extreme temperatures? Do you not understand that when one floor (most likely the impact floor) gave that now we're looking at an almost 30 story building falling through as much as 60 feet? Can you not conceive of the kinetic energy involved in that? and that the inertia involved in that falling building was not going to stop? All it had to do was take out 10 feet - one floor - a floor whose mass would be added to the falling mass on the next 10 feet - one floor - and so forth and so on, all the way down to where your coveted melted steel landed. (I'm not sure where you going with that by the way.)



[edit on 6-3-2005 by Valhall]


i understand exactly what you are saying. the first floors to fail should be the ones which are bearing the brunt of the load. that means we should have observed the floors from 75/78 ish crushed by this massive load, which, theoretically should have still been mostly structurally intact. certainly the uppermost floors should have held together as a massive chunk.
we should have observed this massive chunk smash successive each of the LOWER floors in sequence. only once the top chunk had crushed all the bottom floors, would the top begin to crumble under it's own weight as the greater force would now be the ground pushing back up on the falling mass. get it, yet? the weakest link should break first, right? so, once the mass begins falling, the weakest link is the damaged section. once the damaged section has smashed, the weakest link is the floor directly BELOW the falling mass. what we witness, however, is the floors being successively knocked out of the BOTTOM of the falling mass. the still-standing bottom portion is unaffected as the top part is destroyed, one floor at a time, sequentially from the bottom of the falling chunk, as opposed to the top floors of the bottom part.
understand what i'm saying? i'm not saying agree, but at least offer an explanation if we're going to communicate on this issue.
also, each floor should have offered SOME resistance to the crushing weight. however, it was nearly freefall, perhaps completely freefall even.
also, i don't covet molten steel. interesting statement. i also don't ignore evidence.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


All of these accounts of explosions in the basement were from the exploding fuel – air mix that fell down the elevator shafts when the planes impacted, the buildings collapsed much later.



Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

Didn’t we just go over this a couple of pages ago? Air pressure from the collapsing floors, plus the movement of the exterior frames caused the windows to pop out. True demolition charges look and sound totally different. In fact there is no audio evidence to support the demolition charge claim.


THANK YOU! Demolition charges do not make "big glowing fireballs!" Hello! They are shaped charges with very localized blasts. That shouldn't be seen at all, most likely.

Where was everybody when the waterfall of burning jet fuel burned several WTC victims beyond human recognition as they rode the elevators down in their attempt to escape??? Where was everybody when the little french video dude was standing right there when the doors opened saw fire pouring from the ceiling of the elevator, and burning people running out?

What makes everybody think that this waterfall of burning jet fuel was able to cascade down the elevator shafts and NOT set other parts of the building below the impact level on fire? (and then *I* get accused of trying to use magic bullets *
*).

billybob

You requested I respond to the fact that the top portion of the building was disintegrating as the building collapsed:

I did answer that! I think in my first post in this thread! As the impact of the top half of the building fell downwards on the next floor, the destruction would have happened to the floor above the impact point and below the impact point. So over a course of 20 floor drops you would have taken away most of the top of the building and still only be about the 50th to 60th floor down!

My comment on the alleged molten steel in the basement was that I am very confused as to why you think anyone would think that was worth hiding? Obviously I missed something when trying to catch up in this thread. I'll go back through and see what I missed and get back with you.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
What about that skyscraper in Madrid?
it burned for 17 hours and never fell, how come the WTC did?



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Billybob, steel for all of its wonderful properties is really not that strong and rigid when you scale it up to the size of the WTC.

Buildings derive their structural strength from how the steel is put together, in connection to the use of other materials (i.e. the rigid floor slabs). Once the building started to drop, the precise alignment of the interior columns with the floors and exterior wall would be quickly compromised. The floor slabs on the upper floors would quickly break up, and the top of the building would not really have much structural integrity left. It would kind of be like a falling bowl of spaghetti. At the same time the falling mass pushed the outer walls of the lower portion outward, accelerating the failure of these floors.

Now as for the spire in the north tower, the fact that that started to drop firs indicates that the collapse started with failures in the core area.

This is consistent with the fact that the airplane impact on this building was more centered and caused more damage to the core area.

The falling mass undoubtedly caused floors above and below the initial point of failure to fail at the same time. It is really hard to tell with all of the debris and dust flying around.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
that actually makes sense to me, howard, old boy.
it still doesn't explain why the lower floors didn't budge as all the debris rained down, and how, only then, did the lower part begin to collapse.
it still doesn't explain the molten steel.
it still doesn't explain fema guy, ......etc. etc. etc....
gotta give you credit, man. you're good, howard!..


dh

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Billybob, steel for all of its wonderful properties is really not that strong and rigid when you scale it up to the size of the WTC.

Buildings derive their structural strength from how the steel is put together, in connection to the use of other materials (i.e. the rigid floor slabs). Once the building started to drop, the precise alignment of the interior columns with the floors and exterior wall would be quickly compromised. The floor slabs on the upper floors would quickly break up, and the top of the building would not really have much structural integrity left. It would kind of be like a falling bowl of spaghetti. At the same time the falling mass pushed the outer walls of the lower portion outward, accelerating the failure of these floors.

Now as for the spire in the north tower, the fact that that started to drop firs indicates that the collapse started with failures in the core area.

This is consistent with the fact that the airplane impact on this building was more centered and caused more damage to the core area.

The falling mass undoubtedly caused floors above and below the initial point of failure to fail at the same time. It is really hard to tell with all of the debris and dust flying around.



Howard is very good at sounding like an expert in his own field
Thus we are led to believe that steel isn't that strong and can soon descend into the state of spaghetti slipping from our own manful attempts at curling it round our forks and ending up slurping the ragged slimy entrails into our mouths, all the while the mass is pulverising concrete and vaporising a percentage of the humans
is this really our experience of concrete and steel even under a comparatively small judder and burn of residual (in the case of tower 2) jet fuel and furnishings?
The story is patently crap, and no amount of focussing on small structural details can dissuage
Still, I am an idiot



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
good thread but this puts more light on the situation

The Perfect Terrorist Plan
To Level The Twin Towers
Created In 1976
“it was very strange to be asked to devise a plan to blow up your own home town. But as I watched the Twin Towers really collapse on the morning of September 11th, I realized I was watching the very same thing we devised in the 1976."

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   


is this really our experience of concrete and steel even under a comparatively small judder and burn of residual (in the case of tower 2) jet fuel and furnishings?


The whole point though, dh, is that none of this is within normal expectation of what stresses and strains the towers were expected to hold up against. I have been following this thread vaguely so I don't know if this has been mention (at 25 pages I'm sure it has) but the man who designed the towers (on a discovery documentary) said that the tower was only designed to withstand impacts from jets that would be low on fuel and not intentionaly trying to hit them.
A plane that is upwards of 55 tonnes and flying at something like 400 mph has an enourmous amount of kinetic energy (kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity as I'm sure you are aware, hence this number is huge its something of the order of 5E13 Joules) , very little of which would have been absorbed by the relatively lightweight outer structures, hence it would mainly have been absorbed by the central core. The towers were designed to withstand impacts from slower moving jets and assumed that the fireproofing would be undamaged which it wasn't.
Based purely from the energy considerations of the impact it seems clear to me that quite a lot of damage would have been done to supporting structures, add to this the fact that steel loses its load bearing strength at relatively low temperatures it is not hard to see why the towers fell unaided.
As for your belief that concrete and steel shouldn't behave like they did, it only betrays your inability to comprehend the astronomical forces involved. When thirty floors of a massive building are falling down they will cut through steel and concrete like butter, just look at what trucks can do to cars in crashes.




top topics



 
13
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join