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 ANOK
*Yawn* Do a search this has been answered many time...
There was plenty of time prior to 9-11 to plant explosives. There are witnesses to unknown workers doing 'maintenance' in closed off areas, power downs etc. etc...
Originally posted by ANOK
It's not as hard as you think when you've got help on the inside.
But really this question is not important, there is far more overwhelming evidence of some kind of force, other than planes and fire, acting on the 3 buildings. Look at the physics, not the stuff that can't really be answered only speculated.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Where is the one shred of evidence that proves there was thermate involved in the collapse?
Originally posted by CameronFox
The NIST report wtc.nist.gov.... was completed and not one TRUE engineer has come forth and said that it was inaccurate. Actually quite the opposite. EVERY engineer that has come out publicly has SUPPORTED the findings of the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC.
The NIST report was developed by over 200 technical experts. This included 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. These experts examined thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 video's and close to 10 thousand photographs, EXAMINED OVER 230 PIECES OF STEEL FROM THE WRECKAGE , performed tests and computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all Inspected steel at the salvage yards.
Originally posted by CameronFox
I would like to hear from one Engineer that can speak out against the over 200 experts that studied ALL the evidence. NOT someone that claims to be an Engineer and spends the day on GOOGLE.
I believe Bush is somewhat responsible for 911. I wish people would focus their passion to the REAL questions...
1. Why did Bush wait so long for an investigation (over 450 days )?
2. Why was the original budget so small as compared to Ken Stars report in the investigation into a Blow Job.(close to 100 million dollars) Or the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster where within 3 WEEKS Bush authorized 50 million into the investigation?
3. Why was Bush's close friend (Henry Kissinger)offered the job as Chairman of the 911 commission only to resign after being questioned by the Jersey 4?
4. Why did Bush refuse to testify UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him?
Originally posted by Brand403
So in that were are the work order regristries that should have been logged in a separate building, since the building was built.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Most people that believe in the Controlled Demolition theory, support it with the speculation that Thermate was involved.
Where is the one shred of evidence that proves there was thermate involved in the collapse?
The NIST report wtc.nist.gov.... was completed and not one TRUE engineer has come forth and said that it was inaccurate. Actually quite the opposite. EVERY engineer that has come out publicly has SUPPORTED the findings of the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC.
The NIST report was developed by over 200 technical experts. This included 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. These experts examined thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 video's and close to 10 thousand photographs, EXAMINED OVER 230 PIECES OF STEEL FROM THE WRECKAGE , performed tests and computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers Association of New York all Inspected steel at the salvage yards.
I would like to hear from one Engineer that can speak out against the over 200 experts that studied ALL the evidence. NOT someone that claims to be an Engineer and spends the day on GOOGLE.
I believe Bush is somewhat responsible for 911. I wish people would focus their passion to the REAL questions...
1. Why did Bush wait so long for an investigation (over 450 days )?
2. Why was the original budget so small as compared to Ken Stars report in the investigation into a Blow Job.(close to 100 million dollars) Or the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster where within 3 WEEKS Bush authorized 50 million into the investigation?
3. Why was Bush's close friend (Henry Kissinger)offered the job as Chairman of the 911 commission only to resign after being questioned by the Jersey 4?
4. Why did Bush refuse to testify UNLESS Dick Cheney was with him?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Can you explain the molten steel in the basements of the buildings ?
Originally posted by ANOK
There was plenty of time prior to 9-11 to plant explosives. There are witnesses to unknown workers doing 'maintenance' in closed off areas, power downs etc. etc...
It's not as hard as you think when you've got help on the inside.
But really this question is not important, there is far more overwhelming evidence of some kind of force, other than planes and fire, acting on the 3 buildings. Look at the physics, not the stuff that can't really be answered only speculated.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Phil Moreli, a construction worker at the WTC's said in an interview that he did construction work on all of the towers in the complex for 8 years. Is it so weird that some vacant floors were being worked on?
Actually, along with that, I might check out one of these peer-reviewed papers supporting the official story from highly respected professionals in their respective areas.
Trouble is, there are apparently no records of what was being done available to the public, which is apparently unusual. Griff's a civil/structural engineer, so he could tell you more about that. There were reports of elevator work, which means access to the core, and I've even read in the past of fireproofing upgrades, which means access to the trusses as well as the core. Who had this access would be important info, as lying is not impossible, and is rather pretty commonplace from my view in the world of governments and politics.
Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all, it is not unusual for work in a commercial building NOT to be made available to the public.
They are not required to generate building permits on EVERY change. Cubicles, and office furniture are the majority of what goes on.
Not one elevator contractor that I have worked with has ever allowed another company come in to do work on their systems. Typically this is stated in the contracts.
[...]
As far as the fireproofing. There would need to be permits involved in this if the fireproofing was being changed in the towers.
Originally posted by bsbray11
It wouldn't go unnoticed. They would just LIE about what they were doing, or otherwise obfuscate or conceal it. There are probably hundreds of ways to do that. Explosives can even come in slurry form, so you can just spray it on as if it's fireproofing. If someone were to sit down and think of things like this, I'm sure it could get done.
The last thing someone is going to suspect, is that explosives are being planted by a front team. What makes you think people would suspect that anyway, when YOU won't even consider the possibility AFTER the fact?
Originally posted by CameronFox
First of all, it is not unusual for work in a commercial building NOT to be made available to the public. There is a company in the northeast (including New York) called Equity Office. They are a pretty big building management company. They are constantly doing some type of move in their millions of square feet of property when new tennants arrive. They are not required to generate building permits on EVERY change. Cubicles, and office furniture are the majority of what goes on. The only time building permits are typically required is when something that is load bearing is aded or removed. That being said...any additions or changes in life safety equipment MUST be authorized prior to commencement and then inspected upon completion.
Job No: 104256136 Job Type / App No.: ALT2 Fee: STANDARD
Permit No: 104256136-01-EW-OT Issued: 10/14/2005 Expires: 04/01/2006
Seq. No.: 01 Filing Date: 10/14/2005 INITIAL Status: ISSUED
Work: Proposed Job Start: 10/14/2005 Work Approved: 10/12/2005
ALT2 - GEN.CONSTRUCTN.
REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF INTERIOR NON-BEARING PARTITIONS AND RELATED
Originally posted by CameronFox
Ok, with all due respect Bsbray, "Spray On Explosives?" Not to sound rude, but you seem like a pretty smart guy and that theory is kind of ...well far fetched.
Slurries, sometimes called water gels, contain ammonium nitrate partly in aqueous solution. Depending on the remainder of the ingredients, slurries can be classified as either blasting agents or explosives. Slurry blasting agents contain nonexplosive sensitizers or fuels such as carbon, sulfur, or aluminum, and are not cap sensitive; whereas slurry explosives contain cap- sensitive ingredients such as TNT and the mixture itself may be cap sensitive. Slurries are thickened and gelled with a gum, such as guar gum, to give considerable water resistance.
Since most slurries are not cap sensitive, all slurries, even those containing TNT, are often grouped under the term blasting agent. This grouping is incorrect. A blasting agent, as defined by the National Fire Protection Association, shall contain no ingredient that is classified as an explosive.
Slurry blasting agents require adequate priming with a high-velocity explosive to attain proper detonation velocities, and often require boosters of high explosive spaced along the borehole to as sure complete detonation. Slurry explosives may or may not require priming. The detonation velocities of slurries, between i2,000 and 18,000 fps, vary with ingredients used, charge diameter, degree of confinement, and density. The detonation velocity of a slurry, however, is not as dependent on charge diameter as that of a dry blasting agent. The specific gratity varies from I.i to i.6. The consistency of most slurries ranges from fluid near iOOO F to rigid at freezing temperatures, although some slurries maintain their fluidity even at freezing temperatures. Slurries consequently give the same advantageous direct borehole coupling as dry blasting agents as well as a higher detonation velocity and a higher density. Thus, more energy can be loaded into a given volume of borehole. Saving in costs realized by drilling smaller holes or using larger burden and spacing will often more than offset the higher cost per pound of explosive. Adding powdered aluminum as a sensitizer to slurries greatly increases the heat of explosion or the energy release. Aluminized slurries have been used in extremely hard rock with excellent results.
A slurry and a dry blasting agent may be used in the same borehole in "slurry boosting," with the buk of the charge being dry blasting agent. Boosters placed at regular intervals may improve fragmentation. In another application of slurry boosting, the slurry is placed in a position where fragmentation is difficult, such as a hard toe or a zone of hard rock in the burden. The combination will often give better overall economy than straight slurry or dry blasting agent.
I believe the New York State Law states that ANYONE working inside a hoistway MUST be a licensed Elevator Technician.
Originally posted by doctorfungi
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Can you explain the molten steel in the basements of the buildings ?
You are aware that there are no reports of, and there is no evidence of molten steel in the basement?
Molten metal was seen. Metal doesn't equal steel buddy.
The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2 Â
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3 Â
A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4 Â
A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6 Â
A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7 Â
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 Â
A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9 Â