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.
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop
Lets look at the picture
Have YOU ever been on a building site up on a mast or actually did any work or testing on the Facade of a structure, 4 floors of panels still more or less conected so the building FELL away from that elevation thats why they are lower panels and thats why they are against the debris pile.
We have all seen many thread and KNOW that you have not a clue what to look for in images
A few quotes from firemen etc at the scene
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
Here a link to a video of the elevation not seen on most videos
WTC 7
I spoke to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS on a daily basis due to my job and spent many a day on site testing structural elements for engineers, not ONE thought it was a demoltion.
People like you resort to the really well worn CONSPIRACY CLICHES when it comes to events like this ie people won't tell the truth because of fear of losing their job/life
Building codes where changed, thermal loadings due to fire were looked at more closley after these events things that people like you don't understand or have a clue about.
Before this event thermal loading wasn't designed / tested for in the same manor as stuctural and wind loads basic assumptions where made that was it.
Professor Barbara Lane, leader of Arup’s fire engineering practice says this approach is being applied globally. “An enormous amount of work has been done with computational analysis to model what’s likely to happen in a fire,” she says, adding that things are totally different from 10 years ago.
More here
WTC 10 Years on
There are hundreds of references on the net to the changes due to this, things that armchair expert keyboard warriors like YOU wouldn't hear about to well after they have been proposed.
Why did it take over 2 hours + for fires to break out on the lower floors
Originally posted by: firerescue
A reply to: Jesushere
Why did it take over 2 hours + for fires to break out on the lower floors
Another falsehood...….
FDNY pulled their men out of WTC 7 shortly after noon - they were inside assessing building damage
Found that standpipes supplying water were dry and fires spreading in building
Reported there were fires on 13 floors of WTC 7
Incident commanders made decision that conditions were too dangerous with fire spreading and no means to fight them
Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: Jesushere
If there was (were) planted charges at the WTC, you wouldn’t be splitting hairs over reports. You would be citing the video, audio, and seismic evidence. Not ignoring them (it).
8) CONCLUSIONE
Se esiste anche una sola minima compatibilità fra il frame 736-Cam1 e la rappresentazione del B757-
200 questo da ancor più valore all’incoerenza con lo stesso fotogramma della Cam2 che invece non
mostra assolutamente niente di compatibile ne con il B757-200 ne con tutto il contesto tecnico che ha
reso questi fotogrammi. Se ora riponiamo queste ultime analisi all’interno dell’intero rapporto fra le due
camere lo scenario si presenta a dir poco confuso e assolutamente non attendibile da qualsivoglia punto
di vista. Se sulla Cam1 non v’è alcuna evidenza ma una minima compatibilità (non di certo con un B757
ma con un emitter più piccolo), sulla Cam2 mancano etrambe e l’incompatibilità si presenta sia sul fronte
della rappresentazione dell’aereo sia sulla coerenza con il sistema che ha generato la sequenza video.
Svariate decine di variabili che sono state sempre assolutamente identiche e compatibili fra centinaia
di coppie di fotogrammi cessano di esserlo all’interno di una sola coppia di fotogrammi generando un
evidente dimostrazione di manipolazione/omissione. Si tratta guardacaso dei fotogrammi dove avrebbe
dovuto presentarsi l’aereo. In definitiva i due video non sono in grado di dimostrare nulla se non la loro
intrinseca tendenza a nascondere l’emitter in due modi totalmente differenti.
Ci tengo a precisare che questo rapporto è il frutto di analisi poste su tutti i fotogrammi delle due sequenze.
Ho analizzato frame by frame centinaia di fotogrammi, passandoli alla “lente di ingrandimento” sotto
diversi punti di vista. Per quanto possano apparire insignificanti questi video per la loro bassa qualità
e risoluzione sono da considerarsi ad oggi l’unica prova filmata di uno schianto di B757-200 portata
alla luce dal DoD dal Settembre 2001. Sono quindi da prendere in seria considerazione le analisi poste
sulle sequenze per l’importanza che gli stessi video hanno avuto all’interno della versione ufficiale e più
recentemente nel processo contro Zacarias Moussaoui.
Google Translate (With minor corrections by me, it's still not a fluent translation, any fluent Italian member taker? ) :
8) CONCLUSION
If there is even only a minimal compatibility between the 736-Cam1 frame and the B757-200 representation, then this gives even more value to the inconsistency with the same 736-Cam2 frame that instead doesn't show absolutely nothing compatible with the B757-200 and with all the technical context with which these frames have been made . If we now put these last analyzes into the whole relationship between the two camera scenarios, which is presented, then to say the least, it's confusing and absolutely unreliable from any point of view.
If on the Cam1 frame there is no evidence but only a minimum compatibility (certainly not with a B757 but with a much smaller machine), on the Cam2 frame they are lacking both, and the incompatibility presents itself both on the front part of the aircraft's representation, and also on the coherence with the system that generated the video sequence.
Several dozens of variables have all the time been absolutely identical and compatible among hundreds of frame pairs, except within a single pair of frames, thus generating an evident demonstration of manipulation / omission.
It is a matter of the frames where the plane would have been able to show up . Ultimately the two videos are not able to prove anything but their intrinsic tendency to hide the device in two totally different ways.
I would like to point out that this report is the result of analysis on all the frames of the two sequences.
I analyzed frame by frame hundreds of frames, passing them to the "magnifying glass" under different points of view. Although these videos may appear insignificant due to their low quality and resolution, they are to be considered today the only filmed testimony of a crash of a B757-200 in the light of the DoD scope since September 2001. Therefore, the analyzes carried out must be taken into serious consideration regarding the sequences, due to the importance that the videos themselves had, within the official version and more recently in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui.
Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop
Sad you are right right down delusional... ( LT : Insults, insults, watch out for the rules here.. )
""LT : And for sure all evidence for cutting demolition was in the first three days already disappeared. By the small group of fake "first respondents", especially hired for that task, from one of your beloved Agencies.""
Another blatant falsehood. How from a pile that took 3 months of heavy equipment to move? How would it be possible to get through the edges of the debris field to work the heart of the collapse and remove evidence. From 1,000,000 tons of rubble supposedly cut floor by floor to achieve the witnessed collapse rates. The areas of collapse initiation buried under at least 11 and 29 floors of rubble.
(LT : Easy. Remove the lighter cut facade evidence, but first make a few photos with an iron-worker with a gas tank and acetylene torch beneath the, in the initiation, already CUT core and perimeter stumps. Instant whitewash of that problem. ""We offered you the reason, so believe us or not, we don't care."" Typical CIA textbook operation mode)
From a smoldering pile that had to be constantly sprayed and cooled with water to allow workers to move and remove debris.
(LT : Only a few places that were FLIR photographed by that NASA plane every day, were that hot. It rained extremely hard the next day.... )
Thanks for your willingness to repeat any truth movement lie.
(LT : what a comical remark, coming from such an obsessive dis-info poster.... )
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts. Kevin McPadden (0:38:50)
Kevin : 8 o'clock at night, on the 11th, tons and tons of beams that were CUT, NO iron-workers to do work..!
Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...
Characterization of Submerged Arc Welds from the World Trade Center Towers: As- Deposited Welds and Failures Associated with Impact Damage of the Exterior Columns
files.aws.org...
MORE FROM: WTC TEN YEARS ON: EXPERTS ADMIT SLOW PROGRESS IN APPLYING THE LESSONS OF 9/11
www.wtc7evaluation.org...
Dr. Leroy Hulsey gave the following update on March 27, 2018:
To all who have been following the University of Alaska Fairbanks study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7:
First, I would like to thank you for your interest in and support of the study.
We had planned to release our findings for public review early this year. However, research often takes unexpected turns, and the more complicated the problem, the more difficult it is to predict the completion date. We are still in the process of studying hypothetical collapse mechanisms and attempting to simulate the building’s failure. Our goal is to determine, with a high degree of confidence, the sequence of failures that may have caused the observed collapse and to rule out those mechanisms that could not have caused the observed collapse.
We will release our findings for public review when we are sure we fully understand the mechanisms that are likely to have caused the observed collapse and those that clearly did not occur and could not have caused the observed collapse. We expect to publish our findings later this year, but we will refrain from naming a completion date, given the unpredictability of the research process.
Again, we thank you for your interest in our study and we appreciate your patience as we strive to bring a truly scientific answer to the important question of how WTC 7 collapsed on September 11, 2001.
Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey
Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
ine.uaf.edu...
Project Info
Lead Researcher(s)
J. Leroy Hulsey
Project Team
Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral Researcher
Zhili Quan, Ph.D. student
Project Dates
May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018
Funding
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Project Budget: $316,153
Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop
Blatant falsehoods.
The buckling is right there in the video record for the towers. And there is vertical buckled columns in the shap of U’s from overloading.
What should the bucking look like? Bent steel? Which was present in the rubble.
Than after the initial buckling, the main failures were sheared or stretched floor columns and broken welds.
For WTC 7, thermal stress lead to broken floor connections and bolting. The columns at WTC 7 buckled from loss of lateral support. Again, there was bent and deformed steel at WTC7.
And there was no identity marks on the columns of WTC 7. Is that false? How would you even identify the steel like the marked columns from the towers?
Sad to see your arguments descend into truth movement lies, and the evidence of buckling right there in the video record.
""Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...
Characterization of Submerged Arc Welds from the World Trade Center Towers: As- Deposited Welds and Failures Associated with Impact Damage of the Exterior Columns
files.aws.org... ""
And there was no identity marks on the columns of WTC 7. Is that false? How would you even identify the steel like the marked columns from the towers?