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.
NYC World Premiere. Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose the Myths of 9/11
page: 8share:
a reply to: FlySolo
Judging from the damaged generator, which was struck by the right engine nacelle and the fact that American 77 was in a slight left bank, I am estimating between 46 to 47 feet at the top of the vertical stabilizer from ground level with the left nacelle just above the ground.
Photo: Right Wing Impact Damage on Pentagon Wall
Photo: Damaged Generator
Damaged Generator in Relation to the Pentagon
I mean the explanation of ground effect at the pentagon in bunk. Saw your picture, you look like a decent respectable fellow. If I may, I believe you have been fooled into the OS. As I stated, the plane is 44 feet in height. Add ground effect to that, how high would the plane be? What is the height of the outer wall breach?
Judging from the damaged generator, which was struck by the right engine nacelle and the fact that American 77 was in a slight left bank, I am estimating between 46 to 47 feet at the top of the vertical stabilizer from ground level with the left nacelle just above the ground.
Photo: Right Wing Impact Damage on Pentagon Wall
Photo: Damaged Generator
Damaged Generator in Relation to the Pentagon
Judging from the damaged generator, which was struck by the right engine nacelle and the fact that American 77 was in a slight left bank, I am estimating between 46 to 47 feet at the top of the vertical stabilizer from ground level with the left nacelle just above the ground.
Well then we should damage to the building in those area's , yes.. I don't see it in the photos in this video..
I cant imbed this...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-9-2015 by wildb because: fix link
edit on 12-9-2015 by wildb because: fix link
edit on 12-9-2015 by wildb
because: fix link
a reply to: soulwaxer
I will do better than that. Here are videos of demolitions that were further away than the video of WTC7.
Demo explosions can be heard many miles away.
As you may notice, all the video of demolitions in your post are filmed relatively close-up, with nothing standing in the way of the buildings. Show me a shot of wtc7 that close and with audio.
I will do better than that. Here are videos of demolitions that were further away than the video of WTC7.
Demo explosions can be heard many miles away.
edit on 12-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: skyeagle409
What is different about this building coming down and WTC 1,2 & 7?
No office fires or airplane fuel was used, yet this building came down perfectly in it's own foot print.
Are you trying to convince all of use that jet fuel and some office fires can do a better job than demolition?
Also what kind of demolition could have been used to bring the WTC down? Have you looked into this? I am sure there is very advance demolition that we are not aware of yet.
What is different about this building coming down and WTC 1,2 & 7?
No office fires or airplane fuel was used, yet this building came down perfectly in it's own foot print.
Are you trying to convince all of use that jet fuel and some office fires can do a better job than demolition?
Also what kind of demolition could have been used to bring the WTC down? Have you looked into this? I am sure there is very advance demolition that we are not aware of yet.
edit on 12-9-2015 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: skyeagle409
This actually makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
I do wonder how much energy was converted from the falling mass to pulverize the concrete and mangle the steel construction below. Because that required energy is in essence slowing down the free fall.
So, for example let's assume the building was falling at 80% of free fall speed. That would mean that the energy to slow a mass(equal to that of the top portion of the tower) to 80% of free fall is enough to reduce the entire building to dust. Could that be correct?
It was not possible for the top of the WTC Tower to topple over because with all of that weight concentrated on a small area, there was no way the hinge point could continue to support the weight of the upper block and the only way to go was straight down from that point on.
This actually makes sense, thanks for the explanation.
I do wonder how much energy was converted from the falling mass to pulverize the concrete and mangle the steel construction below. Because that required energy is in essence slowing down the free fall.
So, for example let's assume the building was falling at 80% of free fall speed. That would mean that the energy to slow a mass(equal to that of the top portion of the tower) to 80% of free fall is enough to reduce the entire building to dust. Could that be correct?
a reply to: gladtobehere
911 is a blatant conspiracy and mass murder and by NOT 19 Arabs
www.amazon.com...
All one has to realize is that if they would have bombed those buildings for 12 hours they still wouldn’t have fallen down like they did by only two planes going into them...
And building 7 falling down like that because of a few fires!
*** Last Line Removed ***
911 is a blatant conspiracy and mass murder and by NOT 19 Arabs
www.amazon.com...
All one has to realize is that if they would have bombed those buildings for 12 hours they still wouldn’t have fallen down like they did by only two planes going into them...
And building 7 falling down like that because of a few fires!
*** Last Line Removed ***
edit on 9/12/2015 by Majic because: Please don't insult anyone for thinking differently. Thanks.
a reply to: Informer1958
That is the calamity of the OS from inside the nutshell.
Are you trying to convince all of use that jet fuel and some office fires can do a better job than demolition?
That is the calamity of the OS from inside the nutshell.
a reply to: wildb
Damaged Columns 1
Damaged Columns 2
A cruise missile was not capable of taking out the light poles outside and the steel columns inside the Pentagon.
Damaged Columns 1
Damaged Columns 2
A cruise missile was not capable of taking out the light poles outside and the steel columns inside the Pentagon.
edit on 12-9-2015 by
skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: wildb
It did in Thailand. Check it out.
In Mexico City, a steel frame building fell straight down during an earthquake.
What you must understand is the Law's of Physics were suspended that day, it's the only answer that fits...
It did in Thailand. Check it out.
Kader Toy Factory Fire
At about 4pm on May 10th, 1993, a small fire was discovered on the first floor of part of the E-shaped building. Workers were instructed to keep working as the fire was thought to be minor. The fire alarm in this building did not sound.
The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed...Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.
The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.
In Mexico City, a steel frame building fell straight down during an earthquake.
Photo: 21-story steel frame building collapse due to an earthquake
Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building
a reply to: skyeagle409
You sure know how to dodge a question. I was talking about the outside of the building not the inside. Nor did I bring up missiles.
What I did was ask you to point out damage that would be consistent with being hit by a 757. There was many still's in the video, none show evidence of a plane crash...
Now the pentagon is easy, it has cameras everywhere. There are cameras everywhere around the Pentagon. So it is simple, if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon show us the video, case closed... but they did not because they don't have it..
You sure know how to dodge a question. I was talking about the outside of the building not the inside. Nor did I bring up missiles.
What I did was ask you to point out damage that would be consistent with being hit by a 757. There was many still's in the video, none show evidence of a plane crash...
Now the pentagon is easy, it has cameras everywhere. There are cameras everywhere around the Pentagon. So it is simple, if a 757 crashed into the Pentagon show us the video, case closed... but they did not because they don't have it..
a reply to: skyeagle409
That damage to the generator can only be from the "fuselage" because if they were nicked by the engines added to the height of ground effect, then the impact hole would be on the 4th floor. One floor is only 10 feet. 46-47 feet makes puts you at the 4-5th floor. The only possible way a plane can impact the ground floor...is if it's on its belly. But, no skid marks. You can't tell me you don't find this odd.
That damage to the generator can only be from the "fuselage" because if they were nicked by the engines added to the height of ground effect, then the impact hole would be on the 4th floor. One floor is only 10 feet. 46-47 feet makes puts you at the 4-5th floor. The only possible way a plane can impact the ground floor...is if it's on its belly. But, no skid marks. You can't tell me you don't find this odd.
a reply to: Jubei42
That is correct. In fact, we can go here and look how much dust is generated during a demolition process that doesn't require the used of explosives. At time line 0:34, you will notice the building starts to tilt, but continues to fall straight down.
In this video, you will notice that WTC6 starts to tilt at time line 1:48, but the collapse continues downward.
That is correct. In fact, we can go here and look how much dust is generated during a demolition process that doesn't require the used of explosives. At time line 0:34, you will notice the building starts to tilt, but continues to fall straight down.
In this video, you will notice that WTC6 starts to tilt at time line 1:48, but the collapse continues downward.
edit on 12-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
(post by randyvs removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
a reply to: randyvs
I know, right.
Why on earth would any company use a demolition company to bring a building down, when all they need to do is poor jet fuel over the top floors and stand back wait an hour and watch the whole building come down in it's own foot print and pulverize all the concrete in mid air?
I think this should put the demolition companies out of business, wouldn't you agree?
That is the calamity of the OS from inside the nutshell.
I know, right.
Why on earth would any company use a demolition company to bring a building down, when all they need to do is poor jet fuel over the top floors and stand back wait an hour and watch the whole building come down in it's own foot print and pulverize all the concrete in mid air?
I think this should put the demolition companies out of business, wouldn't you agree?
(post by wmd_2008 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
a reply to: randyvs
For the most part, I agree with the official story and the overwhelming majority of structural and civil engieers, architects, demolition experts, and even firefighters will agree with me.
*** Moderated Quote Removed **
For the most part, I agree with the official story and the overwhelming majority of structural and civil engieers, architects, demolition experts, and even firefighters will agree with me.
Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse
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...
No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader
Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.
Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11.
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. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.
Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief’s Assessment
The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.
vincentdunn.com...
American Society of Civil Engineers
Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire
911-engineers.blogspot.com...
There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.
Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.
“It is somewhat troubling that he (Richard Gage) sort of portrays the notion that we have a relations.
AIA Scott Frank said: “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever” “It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not,” “There is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.”
www.architectmagazine.com...
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
911research.wtc7.net...
edit on 12-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/12/2015 by Majic because: (no reason
given)
a reply to: randyvs
How about explaining to us, the process of how stored iron can generate temperatures high enough to start fires, even if buried beneath the ground.
*** Moderated Quote Removed **
How about explaining to us, the process of how stored iron can generate temperatures high enough to start fires, even if buried beneath the ground.
edit on 12-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/12/2015 by Majic because: (no reason given)