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 Spawwwn
ok well i'm hoping this thread goes somewhere because i for one am quite puzzled as to why people think that the buildings were the result of a controlled demolition.
Originally posted by Vushta
Why is it that no people involved in CD think the collapses were the result of explosives?
Protec personnel have studied the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations
obvious squibs
visual evidence of thermite reactions
CDI was contracted to do the cleanup
the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building the weekend before
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.
UNPRECEDENTED power down
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
That happened AFTER the collapse started, couldn't have brought it down.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They are considered the best, you want the second best to handle important work like this?
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
The dogs were deployed during a period of heightened security.
www.newsday.com...
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
A single source story, with no corroboration, and only happened in half of 1 tower.
THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN CD, SO, the document you link is BUNK.
5. Their answers ASSUME ONLY A TRADITIONAL BOTTOM UP GRAVTIY DEMOLITION, the problem with that is, there are other was to demo a building if you have differing goals.
6. They make ABSURD assumptions which I would post here but they "locked" the PDF so you cannot cut and paste. GEE... WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
7. They do not consider incendaries, only HE.
8. Anyone who uses terms lik "Wyle e. Coyote" in their JUNK PSEUDO SCIENCE PAPER sohlud be ignored as they are unprofessional and ignoring the gravity of the topic.
Why do they make this flase claim that an excavator driver would put the buckt into a puddle of molten metal? JUNK SCIENCE.
Maybe because that what he said he did?
Did they miss out on the thermal imaging of the site or are they ignoring it on purpose?
No excavator dug into molten metal. They pulled the "cold" ends and what came out was molten on the other end.
One eye witness says no sound? (I hat using eyewitness testimony as the human mind is very FALLIBLE and CONTROLLABLE).
1.5 Many say they DID hear "booms". (again, hate eyewitness testimony.)
2. Incendaries do not go boom.
3. You are asuming you would hear this over all of the other sirens, alarms, roaring, crumbling of buildings, etc.
No, DURING and was part of a process. Your ABSOLUTE LOGIC is deeply flawed in this statement.
IT is highly suspicious that the worlds foremost DEMOLITION company cane to do a CLEANUP. Who says they are "considered the best" at CLEANUP? NO ONE. Only you.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Read the second page, it's right there.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I checked and can only conclude that you are lying, they never presume that.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
So paraphrase, pfd's are commonly used by professionals.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They don't consider something that demolitionists never use? Shocking. Incendiaries burn down, they could never take out a vertical core.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Prove it's psuedoscience, get a real expert to back you up, and look at the Wyle e. Coyote reference in context, he doesn't use it to support anything.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Maybe because that what he said he did?
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What would they have done with it?
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Guess you've never seen the picture that's usually used to 'prove' molten steel was present. It shows exactly that an excavator holding a glowing piece of something that's dripping something off of it.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
That what I said during the collapse, which is after it started, and that side was already falling. This means the windows would break, releasing the smoke inside.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Demolitions crews don't clean up after buildings that have collapsed?
Originally posted by Spawwwn
ok well i'm hoping this thread goes somewhere because i for one am quite puzzled as to why people think that the buildings were the result of a controlled demolition.
ebaumsworld.com...
The above video is a video of a controled demoliton of a tall building that is similar to the WTC. sorry that it's from ebaums, but it is quite a good video and will have something u can compare with in later links.
If you notice..the building falls straight down, and only towards the end does the top appear to cave in similar like the wtc.
Page 3... Assertion one... they claim WTC #1 and #2 could not have been CD because it was top down... Stupid conclusion that assumes there is only one way to skin a cat. You would know that if you read it. Stop calling me names.
I donot know what a pfd is, but pdf's are usually left unlocked to alow quoting and citing.
More non-sensical exacting statements by our local genius. Patents exist for shaped thermite/thermate cutting charges to do EXACTLY that. But you know that already.
It is not pseudoscience... you are correct. It is not science AT ALL. Where is the DATA? The CITATIONS? THE PHOTOS? THE SEISMIC RECORDS? They claim to have used all of this to draw their conclusions yet present NONE of it. NOT SCIENCE, just an OP/ED piece.
source?
It is a steel clolumn, I would expect any average moron to be able to see that...
0. PROTEC is a GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR.
1. The claim to have had DOZENS of siesmographs in the area but present NO DATA from any of these devices.
2. They give no sources for their "private photos and videos" used for this paper NOR do they present ANY of them.
3. They give no citations for thier aquired data.
4. It is not peer reviewed, just the opinion of a few guys at one company.