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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" It's not rocket science-COMMON SENSE!! VS DENIAL!!

page: 18
85
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



You have been shown evidence and have heard from many experts in their field of expertise here on ATS.


Continue here due to lack of space in my previous post.



Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

www.debunking911.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event... and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

sites.google.com...


Van Romero

New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."

Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

911research.wtc7.net...


The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.'

They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."


Shyam Sunder

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

www.representativepress.org...


American Society of Civil Engineers
Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


Architects Shy From Trutherism

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

www.architectmagazine.com...
edit on 28-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories: Brent Blanchard


That is his theory, wheres his science?

Do you consider someone's opinions as facts?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.


OPINIONATED. Nice try.


Architects Shy From Trutherism

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.


Yeah, I wonder how many of these nice folks have government contracts and dare not risk losing them by speaking out against the OS lies.


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Uh, no science here? Another opinionated rant looking for desperate support for the OS narratives. Just more "opinions" nothing to see here.


American Society of Civil Engineers
Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


More "opinions" no science to support your conspiracy theories. Where is their science?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

It is nevertheless interesting to check the amount of explosives that would be required to produce all of the pulverized concrete dust found on the ground. Explosives are notoriously inefficient as a comminution tool. At most 10% of their explosive energy gets converted into the fracture energy of comminution, and only if the explosive charges are installed in small holesdrilled into the solid to be comminuted. Noting that 1 kg of TNT releases chemically about 4 MJ of energy, the total mass of TNT required to pulverize 14.6 × 107 kg concrete material into dust of the sizes found on the ground would be 316 tons. So, in order to achieve solely by explosives the documented degree of concrete pulverization, about 1.36 tons of TNT per story would have to be installed into small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each story, and then wired to explode in a precise time sequence to simulate free fall.

Given the uncertainty of input parameters, computer calculations have been run for the full range of their realistic values. In comparison with all these calculations, the claim that the observed fineness, extent and spread of pulverized dust could be explained only by planted explosives has been found to be absurd. Only gravity driven impact could have produced the concrete dust as found on the ground.


www.civil.northwestern.edu...&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

PAGE NOT FOUND

Your source is dead.

Another "opinionated" rant with no science. Shell I continue...


'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

www.implosionworld.com...


More "opinionated theories. Where is their science?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



That is his theory, wheres his science?


The same kind of science that can be found in high school science books, that explains the squibs (compressed air) to free fall, which doesn't take a science book anyway, just common sense, since it is evident in videos and photos that debris are seen outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, which debunk claims the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed.
edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



PAGE NOT FOUND

Your source is dead.


Not this source. As the saying goes: If at first you don't succeed, try again.



What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Other critics claimed sightings of “pools of molten metal” within the rubble pile, purportedly produced by planted thermite-based incendiary devices. But all of the supposed evidence is entirely anecdotal, and is refuted by the facts in NIST (2005) report.

It was asserted that the presence of thermite residues was evidenced by sulfur, copper and zinc detected in the WTC dust samples. But these elements were to be expected since they were contained in gypsum wallboard, electrical wiring, galvanized sheet steel, etc.

heiwaco.tripod.com...


Elements that were expected to be found in the WTC rubble. The ignorance of Steven Jones and Richard Gage was used to dupe the Truth Movement once again.

Let's not forget how Steven Jones duped the Truth Movement with a doctored photo, which he claimed was evidence of molten steel. He didn't bother to tell the CT folks that what he claimed was molten steel, was just a flashlight reflection.

How long did the Truth Movement rave over that doctored photo as proof of molten steel before someone decided to post this video?





edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



Nice try.


In addition to American Institute of Architects dumping Richard Gage, Richard Gage was also caught lying on video.







Yeah, I wonder how many of these nice folks have government contracts and dare not risk losing them by speaking out against the OS lies.


That doesn't make any difference at all, but go ahead, post the numbers for us all. How many of those investigators had government contracts prior to 9/11?



Uh, no science here? Another opinionated rant looking for desperate support for the OS narratives. Just more "opinions" nothing to see here.


That doesn't fly, so go ahead, prove them wrong. Otherwise, you have no case.



More "opinions" no science to support your conspiracy theories. Where is their science?


Simple science is all it took to debunk all truther claims. Case in point. The CT folks claim that explosives were used to destroy WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, but anyone who is familiar with explosives would have found that claim in error by the fact there were no secondary explosions as the aircraft struck WTC1 and WTC2 and as debris struck WTC7 nor were there secondary explosions as those buildings collapsed, which is proof that demo explosives were not placed inside those buildings.

Add to the fact that seismic monitors did not detect demo explosions, which is consistent with WTC videos that do not depict demo explosions, which explains why no evidence of demo explosives was ever found in the rubble.

To sum it up, claims of demo explosives and thermite at ground zero were fabricated without a shred of evidence.
[ed
edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Just to let you know that your reference is a source of the disinformation that I have warned the CT folks about.

Check it out.


...the facade damage on the left side of the opening are not suggestive of the proposed impact of a B-757; >>
the tail of the aircraft left no visible marks on the facade


Let's take a look and see.

Photo: Right Wing Impact Damage 1

Photo: Right Wing Impact Damage 2



the Report fails to provide any kind of explanation for the hole in the wall of Ring C.


The landing gear punched out that hole in the inner ring. You can even see a tire in this photo.

Tire Remains


The uncertainties related to the alleged point of impact as well as the approach angle, vertical position and inclination of the aircraft do not weaken the conclusion presented herein that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a Boeing 757 in the manner described in the report.


Don't tell that to these folks.



"Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

* Richard Benedetto, a USA TODAY reporter, was on his way to work, driving on the Highway parrallel to the Pentagon : "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.

* Staff Sgt. Chris Braman : The lawn was littered with twisted pieces of aluminum. He saw one chunk painted with the letter ``A,'' another with a ``C.'' It didn't occur to Braman what the letters signified until a man in the crowd stooped to pick up one of the smaller metal shards. He examined it for a moment, then announced: ``This was a jet.''

* Joe Harrington was working on the installation of new furniture in Wedge One, when he was called out to the parking lot to talk about security with his customer moments before the crash. "About two minutes later one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.," Harrington said. "It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge. It was like a Hollywood movie or something.

* Bob Hunt in office when the explosion at the Pentagon occurred. "About a third of the sky was blacked with smoke", He said. Hunt was in contact with this office via e-mail on September 11 until he left work and decided to walk, rather than catch a crowded subway. "I talked to a number of average people in route who said they saw the plane hovering over the Washington Mall Area at an altitude lower that the height of the Washington Monument" Hunt stated. He said they reported to him they could clearly see the markings of an American Airlines airliner...

* Lagasse, William: I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground, 400 miles an hour. The reason, I have some experience as a pilot and I looked at the plane. Didn't see any landing gear. Didn't see any flaps down. I realized it wasn't going to land. . . . It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. . .

* Liebner, Lincoln: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low," said Army Captain Lincoln Liebner. "My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I realised what was happening."

* McCusker, Elaine: Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don't know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.

* Munsey, Christopher: A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away.

* O'Keefe, John: Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. 'I was going up 395, up Washington Blvd., listening to the the news, to WTOP, and from my left side-I don't know whether I saw or heard it first- I saw a silver plane I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet,'


And of course, American Airlines announced the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon.



NB. This author is aware of theories promoted to suggest that the Pentagon was indeed hit by a Boeing 757


That is what the witnesses reported and confirmed by radar and FDR data and my Wing Commander.


While this possibility cannot be excluded offhand - and the conclusions about the impossibility of a B-757's crash reached in this article may not be directly applicable to such a case - no substantial evidence has so far been produced to back up such a theory.


Well, the B-757 wreckage didn't just walk to the Pentagon.

B-757 Wreckage at the Pentagon


edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Where are their statements? Where are the statements that you claimed support your case?



Where is all this evidence that you claim?


You can find it here.



Civil & Structural engineers on WTC

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


And here.



And here.



Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

www.jnani.org...


And a company that debunked the claim of demo explosives at ground zero, which is the same company whose seismic monitors did not detect demo explosions at ground zero.



Protec and its Engineers and Field Representatives are active members of the following organizations:

* National Demolition Association (NDA)
* Institute of Explosive Engineers (IEE)
* International Society of Explosive Engineers (ISEE)
* Utility & Transportation Contractors Association (UTCA)
* Worldwide leaders in ground vibration prediction and monitoring serving the construction, demolition and blasting industries. Also structure inspections, noise monitoring, claim investigations, jobsite video/photo and ancillary engineering services.


Brent Blanchard in a paper entitled 'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert with Protec, and contributor to ImplosionWorld.com, weighs in with his expert opinion:

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with.

The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.

www.implosionworld.com...

edit on 29-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
85
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join