Where Did the Towers Go?

Hey Haven123- This is one of Jesse's producers. All posts from the Offthegrid account are from the team. When the Governor comes on ATS, you will know it's him because the posts and replies will be directly from his account- Jesse Ventura.

a reply to: haven123

We started this partnership because ATS is such a great forum for discussion about the different topics that we cover on the show. We think it's a great place for fans of the show to discuss and debate with other like-minded fans. When Jesse is on and answering posts, you will know it's him because he will be signed into his own account- Jesse Ventura. Any posts and replies from the Offthegrid account are from someone from the show team.

Starting in a few weeks, we will also be browsing the forum and threads and Mr. Ventura will directly answer ATS member questions in his show. In addition, we would love to hear about any suggestions that ATS'ers have about topics to cover in the show.

a reply to: speculativeoptimist

We think so too! We have already found some really interesting information from different posts we've seen in our forum and others.
a reply to: darkbake

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: wmd_2008

You and everyone else acts as if the bottom 3/4s of the building isn't pushing upwards with the exact same force as being pushed down. You act as if the entire structure was compromised when in reality a fraction of it was. Your model cannot, for the last time, explain the acceleration downwards treating the building as if it were of no structural integrity. Who would have thought that a couple 767s, some fire/jetfuel cocktail, sagging trusses (my favorite), and floor slabs could do the job demo experts plan over months? Oh, can you show me a real world example of fire-proofed steel being weakened by fire and sagging or do I have to trust the authorities on that as well?

Sorry but to DOES for example plug in the 100kg mass it the impact calculator linked to in my post above and see the RESULT

Using the DEFAULT stopping distance the program starts with of 0.1 mtr or 10 cm a 100KG mass dropped 3.6 mtrs (a twin tower floor height) will generate an average impact force of 35280 N divide that by 10 for easy maths to convert to kilograms and that is 3520 kg or 3.5 tons!!!!

The concrete in ONE floor slab was at least 10 thousand times heavier than that 100kg mass that's just the concrete not even including the steel or anything else.

Now look at what floor the North & South towers were hit NOW do you get the problems of dealing with a DYNAMIC LOAD!!!!

It's also been documented that the sprayed on fire protection wasn't done as well as it should have the impact's would have also removed some of it as well , that's one of the advantages of working in the construction industry for 35 years starting off in the drawing/ design office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company and ACTUALLY seeing these things first hand!!!!

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Okay, Nice one, I appreciate the reply.

a reply to: wmd_2008


What is your documentation of the faulty fireproofing? We know the company that did the fireproofing of the floors the planes hit. Did they come out and admit that it was faulty? I would love to see that release

And pretty much what you are saying is those towers were death traps cause all it would take is a failure of any support system and the towers would fall to the ground as seen on 911.
I have a hard time believing that those buildings were built that poorly..
I have seen the pictures of the core of that tower. What you are telling me is that the top sections of those towers destroyed the bottom sections of those towers, destroying 10 floors a second with almost no resistance.

For some one with 35 years of construction, you sure are using the term dynamic load loosely... quick google search will show that

originally posted by: OFFTHEGRID
We think so too! We have already found some really interesting information from different posts we've seen in our forum and others.
a reply to: darkbake

Thank you for engaging the thread!

Very much appreciated.

Peace

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID
Thank you for the clarification
I hope in these OTG threads you guys(team) will chime in and reply, offering your perspective and evidence for the thread subject. I would imagine you guys have some good resources to compliment ours.

Topic ideas eh? I would like to see some investigation on neuro-linguistic programming, as it's meaning, origin and how/where it is used. Hydro- Fracking issues, exotic technology, medical injustices and geoengineering are subjects of personal interest too.

Anyway, glad to have you guys onboard and look forward to the truth pursuits.

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: hellobruce

The entire building was steel framed and concrete floors.

Concrete doesnt turn to dust after an hour of jet fuel burning on it, nor does steel weaken.

Concrete turns to dust when it's crushed. And, alas:

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: hellobruce

And if you know anything about general psychics you will know that while thats major weight, you need to initiate some sort of jolt of the weight to initiate a collapse.

And you got that when the floor supports let go at the floor where they were softened by the jet fuel.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: hellobruce

The problem with it being 21 floors smashing the next is that the building was always able to hold up that mass.

You can hold a 5 pound sledge, too. But if I smack you with it, it's going to kill you. Why? Because one is static, the other is kinetic.

With ejecta spewing out up to 600ft - the mass is actually becoming less and less and just like any collision; it should have came to a halt.

With every floor that falls, you pick up FAR more mass than you're losing to ejecta.

originally posted by: cestrup
This falls apart when the floor is dustified ...

Your "dustification" is some of the concrete being crushed as the building falls. If you believe that some death beam from a satellite is doing that, please provide any rational method by which one would "dustify" concrete. Other than the obvious - mechanical damage.

originally posted by: buster2010

Sorry but it doesn't work that way. For the building to completely demolish like the towers did the support structures have to be cut. Not to mention a collapse does not pulverize concrete only an explosion can do that.

You actually don't think that concrete can be crushed by concrete falling on it like a freight train? ONLY an explosion can do this. That's what you think.

originally posted by: abdctd
Has the "dustification" of steel ever been acheived anywhere other than on 9/11?

The question you might ask is - if you had a death beam that made monatomic steel dust out of girders, what's the very next thing that happens? Only it didn't, in this circumstance.

I don't buy Dr.Woods theory,Governor.We have had more than enough evidence of the use of explosives for years now.These fringe theories are bogging down any research done by credible people.I've seen alot of this sort of thing in the JFK assassination field as well.Makes you wonder if it's deliberate.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008


What is your documentation of the faulty fireproofing? We know the company that did the fireproofing of the floors the planes hit. Did they come out and admit that it was faulty? I would love to see that release

And pretty much what you are saying is those towers were death traps cause all it would take is a failure of any support system and the towers would fall to the ground as seen on 911.
I have a hard time believing that those buildings were built that poorly..
I have seen the pictures of the core of that tower. What you are telling me is that the top sections of those towers destroyed the bottom sections of those towers, destroying 10 floors a second with almost no resistance.

For some one with 35 years of construction, you sure are using the term dynamic load loosely... quick google search will show that

How about I show you WTC Fire proofing and more

YOU had to Google dynamic loads others here didn't but just so others see what it means.

In civil and structural engineering, dynamic or live loads are loads that can change or are applied with motion

You see we have had comments on this site in previous threads re 911 saying things like "well the towers held the floors up for years why would them dropping be different"

Any comments on the 100kg load dropping using the impact calculator Remember that's it being halted over 4" 0.1 mtr and we know the floors didn't halt.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Ya those pictures show nothing... When and where in the building were they taken. Was it before or after the Turner construction did the fireproofing renovations??
Context, it is kinda important

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008

Ya those pictures show nothing... When and where in the building were they taken. Was it before or after the Turner construction did the fireproofing renovations??
Context, it is kinda important

Well there is plenty of documented comments re the fire proofing right up until June 2000

"Large areas of fireproofing are missing from the core columns in some of the photographs, and the architect who took them, Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y., said his work had shown that the fireproofing did not stick properly

Mr. Morse, who at the time of his inspections was a consultant to the manufacturer of the fireproofing, said his examinations had never reached above the 78th floor in either tower, but that the nature and dimensions of the problem convinced him the failings of the fireproofing would be found on virtually all parts of the buildings.

Mr. Morse said his inspections on several floors also found problems with the fireproofing of the lightweight, weblike trusses that held up the floors. He said his inspections, which began in 1986 and continued intermittently until June 2000, showed stretches of the tubelike structural steel supporting the trusses without any fireproofing, and other areas of extremely thin fireproofing.

t Mr. Reiss said the problems were caused by the swaying of the buildings in the wind and the impact of elevator cables against the beams. "It was an ongoing maintenance headache," he said.

Although measures were repeatedly taken to prevent the problem, he said, "every March and April when you had these windstorms and the building rocked back and forth, you would still knock some of the fireproofing down."

It's all there if you look for it!!!

What bothers me the most is even if norad was playing war games at the same time, still, Cheney gave an order to stand down?

Were he about to surrender to the simulated enemy?

Why give a stand-down order instead of dispatching scramblers? Why did he not stand up and fight for us, even in the simulation?

If it were not war games at the time, ordering a stand down can only be detrimental to the security of the united states? He gave sign that he has gone belly-up?

Have we gone belly up?

a reply to: wmd_2008

Got a source for the what you just put up?
And again, Turner constrctuion was working on the towers up until the date of the attacks
www.visibility911.org...
Even getting the floors that got hit...
And mr Morse didn't go high enough, he didn't get past the 78th floor, that is just barley the impact zone of one of the towers and a good 10 stories below where the other one hit... Also he would have failed to see the new renovations done by turner construction....