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: 31
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Because the testimony you refer to has been taken out of context. You take a simile and infer a direct relationship from it.

Of course the floors falling sounded “like” explosions. You wouldn’t expect it to sound “like” French horns, now would you.



dh

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
That pancake theory is dumb as hell- the floor collapse theory - it ignores the core columns. its absolutely absurd - these huge welded columns just convolute and inturn on themselves and shatter or melt or throw themselves outward and upward as the collapsing floors overtake the gravitational forces in their downward hurtle
Crap



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh
That pancake theory is dumb as hell- the floor collapse theory - it ignores the core columns. its absolutely absurd - these huge welded columns just convolute and inturn on themselves and shatter or melt or throw themselves outward and upward as the collapsing floors overtake the gravitational forces in their downward hurtle
Crap


You know - when you say stuff like this...you make yourself look silly.

Watch -

This whole "the sky is blue" theory is dumb as hell - the sky is up theory - it ignores swiss cheese, and avocados!

Pretty much the same facts in the statements I just made as in the statements you made. Your baseless diatribes don't make reality - except in your world.


dh

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Dont reject the common sense - you'll only make yourself look silly
If the central core columns had been left standing while the outer cage had collapsed into chunks and body parts and bits and pieces of office furniture your fantasy and that of the USG might seem for a moment correct
The pulverisation of everything the utter turning to dust where vaporisation didn't occur, vanishing people, where tiny shards of tissue exist amidst the dust of steel, plastic, concrete, asbestos, humans
The majority of the substance of the WTCs billowed across Manhatten
It's dumb in the extreme to think this happened as a result of plane crashes



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Passer By
Just one question I have always wondered about and seeing as you all do this so often....

I noticed in those pictures you see fire in very odd places. Like three floor up and the other side of the building, and yet nothing in the middle. Why is that? Not saying it is a conspiracy obviously, just wondering.

thnx


That is a good question. I think it has a lot to do with the locations of verticle shafts, floor penetrations, internal firewalls, etc.

This might help
wtc.nist.gov...

The final report is due out in two weeks, so check it then also.



Thanks Howard, I'll try to remember. Does that sound right though to you? That the fire could be deposited in various locals that don't seem to be connected to the actual site? Something doesn't sound right. But then I am silly.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Passer By, If you read the report, you will see that the fire progressed in typical office fire fashion. The key is, it didn't start like a typical office fire in an electrical closset.

Thus, yes, the fire jumped floors like fires do. It moved up shafts and across open plan offices.

read this



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Passer By, If you read the report, you will see that the fire progressed in typical office fire fashion. The key is, it didn't start like a typical office fire in an electrical closset.

Thus, yes, the fire jumped floors like fires do. It moved up shafts and across open plan offices.

read this





But fire progresses doesn't? What I mean is...

if you have a fire here ---->X and it travels to....



here ->X


Then inbetween the two X's there has to be fire as well doesn't it? From the looks on those pictures it appears that there is no connection at all. Ofcourse, all of this conjecture could be proved, but didn't FEMA cart it all away?? What did they do with it? Could it be examined now?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
wtc.nist.gov...

Section H.6, starting on page H-32.

Oh be sure to google the term "flashover" if you are not familiar with it. Pay attention to the descriptions of the temperatures reached in flashover conditions.

One thing to remember, the WTC towers were not typical in size. Compared to most other buildings, They had huge floor plans with lots, and lots, of open space and lots and lots of flammable cubicles, paper, computers, etc. Also. there is considerable evidence that many of the drywall fire walls were breached by the force of the impact on the building.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Roark I assume you saw this video from the other WTC thread...

Originally posted by AdamJ
watch this, this is quite a good compilation. lots of seperate inteviews so the sound is out of line, but its still good.

www.mypetgoat.tv...



Thought I would add this quote here to this thread, very relevant...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by twitchy
I challenge any skeptic to debunk the information presented by myself and others here.


That is what I am doing. The Randy Lavello article is so full of misinformation and out and out errors that it is totally non-credible.

It is hardly just a "few engineers," but I would guess that the entire engineering comunity would have to be in on this conspiracy.

I realize that you have made up your mind. Hell you probably made it up ten years ago that everything bad that happens in the world is the result of a government conspiracy.

Find me someone with a credible background in structural engineering who backs your assertions.





[edit on 25-9-2004 by HowardRoark]


Yes, I'm sure these "credible engineers" are just jumping out of their bones to come out with some new explainations. Engineers are smart people. Hence, the sound of losing their job and credibility -- complimented by extreme slandering by the majority opponents and media -- would really be at the top of their to-do list.

Just a thought... a very sarcastic one, but a thought none the less.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by white4life420]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by white4life420

Yes, I'm sure these "credible engineers" are just jumping out of their bones to come out with some new explainations. Engineers are smart people. Hence, the sound of losing their job and credibility -- complimented by extreme slandering by the majority opponents and media -- would really be at the top of their to-do list.

Just a thought... a very sarcastic one, but a thought none the less.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by white4life420]


So they are smart and all craven cowards also, is that it?

What about the engineers that don't live in the U.S. and have no reason to be afraid for thier jobs?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by white4life420

Yes, I'm sure these "credible engineers" are just jumping out of their bones to come out with some new explainations. Engineers are smart people. Hence, the sound of losing their job and credibility -- complimented by extreme slandering by the majority opponents and media -- would really be at the top of their to-do list.

Just a thought... a very sarcastic one, but a thought none the less.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by white4life420]


So they are smart and all craven cowards also, is that it?

What about the engineers that don't live in the U.S. and have no reason to be afraid for thier jobs?


Well to be honest, I haven't seen anything by engineers from outside the US. That doesn't mean it's not there though.

There has however been much mainstream media exposure over a possible conspiracy from outside this country -- and none from inside.

Not to mention we have showed you an example of an expert debunking the accepted theory. And if I recall, he was put under extreme scrutiny from the public eye (and you), and fired from his job.


**Edit - Additionally, it is quite easy for you to call someone a coward for being selfish. Some people put their lives and their families futures first... many would call that being a man.

And keep in mind, for the most part it would have to be fairly well-known and highly regaurded person for their voice to be heard. Anyone of that stature knows what's bad for business.

Most people would probably suffer from the "but what can I do? complex". Maybe a conversation with family members or quiet ones with co-workers, but that would be the end of it.
[edit on 16-8-2005 by white4life420]

[edit on 16-8-2005 by white4life420]

[edit on 16-8-2005 by white4life420]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Howie you are gonna have a shock if you are still around in 60 years, when it comes out that they had a bomb in a white van in the basement.
just like they did in 93



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hello


In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives.

Full article : rense.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Musclor
Hello


In two speeches to overflow crowds in New York last weekend, notable theologian David Ray Griffin argued that recently revealed evidence seals the case that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives.



Who cares what a theologian thinks.

Is he also a trained structural engineer?

If not, then I reserve the right to say that he has no idea what he is talking about.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
It's not who said it Roark, it's what he said, amungst which is the very interesting, if not implicative of CDI...


The massive core columns--the most significant structural feature of the buildings, whose very existence is denied in the official 9/11 Commission Report--were severed into uniform 30 foot sections, just right for the 30-foot trucks used to remove them quickly before a real investigation could transpire.

I suppose jet fuel also causes structural Steel to section itself off into 30' pieces for hauling though.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
It's not who said it Roark, it's what he said, amungst which is the very interesting, if not implicative of CDI...



It is very much an issue of “who said it.” That is the whole point of the Rense article.

He is merely regurgitating the same debunked crap with no proof to back up his claims.

Continually repeating lies don’t make them true




Originally posted by twitchy
I suppose jet fuel also causes structural Steel to section itself off into 30' pieces for hauling though.


I don’t suppose it ever occurred to the theologian (or to you for that matter) that the columns were originally manufactured in 30 foot lengths, did it? The 30 foot lengths were bolted together to form the structure. When the structure collapsed, the bolted joints were the weak points that failed.

Furthermore, it two pieces were still attached after the collapse, it would have been a lot easier and faster for the workers to separate them by cutting the bolts rather then to cut the column itself in half.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Roark is an outstanding ATS member .. pure and simple.

I am trained in structural engineering (University of Western Ontario - Canada) ... and even IF the collapse was initiated at the point of plane impact the entire structure would have only partially collapsed and surely not in symetry. Also the time for a complete collapse due to the absurd 'pancake' theory would have been at least 20-30 secs since each structural joint would have resisted failure, not to mention the central support structure was designed inside of the floor truss structure(47 columns). However the video evidence shows pulverization and disintegration at near free fall acceleration which means the internal central structure must have failed throughtout the 110 stories in a simultaneous dynamic action .... which is exactly what demolition crews attempt to create.

Mr Roark either has the attention span of some brevity or he is blinded by internet disinfo .... It is common knowledge in the 'Structural Engineering' community worldwide that the WTC's didn't collapse, but very few will publically admit it due to fear of corporate reprisals.

The key to understanding the demolition of the WTC's is to know that nearly ALL the concrete floor and wall structures were pulverized ... a simple collapse would have left thousands of tonnes of broken pieces of concrete piled high above ground zero. And a number of static vertical support columns would have remained standing at least a few hundred feet in the air and a 'collapse' would have been slow moving and partial or toppling in appearance.

Mod Edit: Civility & Decorum.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zamboni
I am trained in structural engineering (University of Western Ontario - Canada) ... and even IF the collapse was initiated at the point of plane impact the entire structure would have only partially collapsed and surely not in symetry. Also the time for a complete collapse due to the absurd 'pancake' theory would have been at least 20-30 secs since each structural joint would have resisted failure, not to mention the central support structure was designed inside of the floor truss structure(47 columns). However the video evidence shows pulverization and disintegration at near free fall acceleration which means the internal central structure must have failed throughtout the 110 stories in a simultaneous dynamic action .... which is exactly what demolition crews attempt to create.

It is common knowledge in the 'Structural Engineering' community worldwide that the WTC's didn't collapse, but very few will publically admit it due to fear of corporate reprisals.

The key to understanding the demolition of the WTC's is to know that nearly ALL the concrete floor and wall structures were pulverized ... a simple collapse would have left thousands of tonnes of broken pieces of concrete piled high above ground zero. And a number of static vertical support columns would have remained standing at least a few hundred feet in the air and a 'collapse' would have been slow moving and partial or toppling in appearance.

I am quoting your post to preserve the meat and potatoes of it, it will probably be edited so I took the roark stuff out.
It's good to see an engineer taking notice of this thread!



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
i'm wondering if mirthful me's edit changed the intent of the poster.
was an insult turned into a compliment? because, softsoaping an insult is one thing, but outright censorship of a poster's opinions is another.
just curious.


howard certainly is outstanding. like my visa bill. wait for payment, it's coming.

zamboni is right on the money.

i hope your right about the 'common knowledge' in the engineering community.

then again, ...
how could it NOT be? i'm a mere regular thinking joe and i know the same truth for the same reasons. it's simple physics, as 'we' have been saying all along.

too fast(freefall almost), too complete(pulverisation into a fine dust of everything, even PEOPLE(people are mostly water)).



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join