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.

 

Where Did the Towers Go?

page: 11
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
Pacific Rim has a scene where the giant robot is fighting a huge monster. They both go through a large skyscraper as they are tussling and it doesn't collapse (makes the damage at WTC 7 look like a bug bite). Then the monster grows wings and picks the robot up and takes off. On its way upward to the heavens, the monster slams the robot with tremendous force on the tops of two skyscrapers, smashing the top couple floors -- guess what? No collapse.


This is where truthers get their physics information from.... a movie!

"I saw it on TV so it must be true"!!




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Surprised this took so long. Must not have read my post or you wouldn't have came off this foolish



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
you wouldn't have came off this foolish


The ones looking foolish are those who get their physics information from a movie made to entertain people....



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

This thread isn't about me. If you would have read my post, I stated the movie means nothing. But you're more about name-calling and ridicule so carry on. It bodes well for your side



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Except for the fact that cestrup said many times that it was just an observation and in no way proves anything either way... but again, you only quote half of it, even though the part you quoted said it as well, and leave out the rest of the post. Take it out of context and run with it and never let go.....



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Youtube recommended I watch this video so i said wth, why not?
Not much of a no planes guy, but this video gets me closer to jumping down that rabbit hole.
But in the video they actually compare the hole in the tower to a loony tune character.
If you got 20 min and are feeling open minded give it a view.
Doc Woods is only in there like once or twice too which I found refreshing. And nothing about DEW's, just about no planes
www.youtube.com...
And there is some stuff in there that is crazy or easily explained so ****Disclaimer********** I do not agree with 100% of the video, only that it presents the no plane theory in the best way I have seen in a while.
So bruce, don't find that craziest thing in the video and then lump all "truthers" into a group that believes that please



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup

Nobody in this thread took the "loony toons" outlines as literally as you obviously did.


REALLY well lets JOG your memory bold and underlined the IMPORTANT words.


originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: hellobruce

Hence the part that you didn't quote...

Again, the best example of what happens when a plane going 500 mph hits a building that contains steel and concrete.
As it happened twice that morning and in both cases the planes left a "looney tune" outline of the plane.


You see what this picture below



really shows is how the steelwork failed at the column tree joints you see the steelwork had a staggered joint pattern up the elevation of the building.

This photograph below during construction shows how the joints are not in line, you can also see the cleats ( supports for the floor trusses) NOW maybe some of the better thinkers amongst you will no be able to work out HOW a load falling on a floor slab can only be resisted by it's own connections and if that floor falls it will drop on the next.

Tower Perimeter Steel

NIST does NOT claim the fire brought the building down it was a combination of all the events impacts,structural damage, thermal loading leading to a structural failure that brought the mass above the impact points to drop!

As for THERMAL LOADING well here is a quick quote and a chance for you lot to LEARN something!!!


Simply increasing fire proofing thickness without understanding the actual structural response to heat provides no guarantees of increased safety.


Another quick quote to SHOW what I was talking about REALLY IMPORTANT PARTS UNDERLINED FOR MEMBERS ON HERE NOT WORKING IN A TECHNICAL BASIS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.


Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame. What are we doing as an industry to allow this to happen? Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for


More here if YOU can actually be bothered to read something not from a conspiracy site.

What is structural fire engineering



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Wow, that slowed footage of the jet colliding didn't look right. I've also seen another where the jet flickers moments before impact. youtu.be...

This is just so hard to talk about because the technology is way beyond civilian realm. I do love some William Cooper though. Could you imagine if military tech is 50-100 years ahead? Scary

Thanks for the video, dude!



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

It's really a waste of time replying with you. There's so much wrong in this post it really isn't worth getting into because you'll just butcher your next response and the cycle will continue. As far as NIST is concerned, we were talking about building 7, not the towers -- but you knew this and copied materials discussing a different Building. You're doing nothing to add to this conversation and it's rather tiresome having to explain your flaws.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Yes I said typed the words loony tunes and put them in quotes because the idea of a plane shaped hole was "loony tunes" to some... Even tho it happened twice on the morning of 911...
Do you not see in the bold part where I use quotations?
I really hope you weren't using my post as me taking the loony tunes outline as serious as hello bruce who linked a literal picture of a loony tune and compared it too the hole in the tower..

We know nist didn't say fire was the prime reason it fell, but they say that fire was the prime reason all those other small things turned into huge massive failures that trigger the two standing death traps that apparently were just waiting to fall. That each floor could not support the one above. Does that mean that all it would have took was 1 floor to fail and it was game over for that building? Oh and your photo is from a site that thinks that the towers were demoed with nukes, so I am almost certain you are using it out of context

Like many of the terms you have been using, loose, loose definitions of them. But that is the nist way of doing things as well, dip and doge with new science and never before seen events


Oh and it seems that builders know how to build buildings with fire in mind
911research.wtc7.net...
Sure 1 and 2 had planes hit them, but again, those did not initiate the collapse, fire is the big bad boogey man of 911



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup



The picture above doesn't look like this



Nobody in this thread took the "loony toons" outlines as literally as you obviously did. So I think you're trolling for reasons I can't comprehend.


No, he got it spot on. That's what I was talking about when you said you wanted to see outlines of the engines on the wall, which is pretty bizarre. You wouldn't ever find something that looked like that outside a Looney Tunes cartoon.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Matter doesn't go away without an awfully big bang. At some point saying 'maybe it 's something secret' requires such a huge violation of physics that you might as well argue Harry Potter instead.

But huge violation of KNOWN physics is the real essence here, in these towers collapsing the way they did and
of course the utter lack of sufficient rubble


Well, then, obviously the government had trained magic experts with wands.

It's so obvious now.

They sure hauled an awful lot of 'utter lack' off the site though.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
... just about no planes...only that it presents the no plane theory in the best way I have seen in a while.
So bruce, don't find that craziest thing in the video and then lump all "truthers" into a group that believes that please


You seriously believe the hologram thing? Really?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Sremmos80

Wow, that slowed footage of the jet colliding didn't look right. I've also seen another where the jet flickers moments before impact. youtu.be...

This is just so hard to talk about because the technology is way beyond civilian realm. I do love some William Cooper though. Could you imagine if military tech is 50-100 years ahead? Scary

Thanks for the video, dude!


Or...there isn't any spooky hologram/deathbeam/disintegrator technology at all, and the buildings collapsed because they were damaged when a jet flew into them.

Can you imagine if it's not a conspiracy? Scary.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

They kept some black budget steal planes like the sr-71 for year and years while using it all the time. They only lost one also.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: Bedlam

They kept some black budget steal planes like the sr-71 for year and years while using it all the time. They only lost one also.


Only lost 1? What about 61-7950 or 61-7952 or 61-7953 or 61-7954 or 61-7957 or 61-7965 or 61-7966 or 61-7970 or 61-7971 or 61-7974 or 61-7977 or 61-7978?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Oh well i was only thinking of one model, that was silly my mistake.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Except in the picture of the tower you also included.. Seems like an outline of a plane, down to the tips of the wings and damage, or lack of building, where the engines would have hit, whoda thunk it



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Bedlam

Except in the picture of the tower you also included.. Seems like an outline of a plane, down to the tips of the wings and damage, or lack of building, where the engines would have hit, whoda thunk it


I think you sort of have to squint real hard to see that outline, there's also a sort of chunk of building still in the way on the bottom left you have to ignore.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

... Huh, you quote my post but you fail to quote the bolded and underlined disclaimer where I said I don't believe in 100% of what was presented... seems that would have answered your question.
No i don't believe that is what happened but that video presents it without all the DEW.
They focus on the the speeds and elevation of the aircraft, an area that seems to have the aviation field split on what is possible and what is just "unsafe"



Or...there isn't any spooky hologram/deathbeam/disintegrator technology at all, and the buildings collapsed because they were damaged when a jet flew into them.


Or they knew about the attack, planted HE in the towers after larry bought the asbestos filled death traps that he flipped rather quickly with the insurance pay out
Oh and the commission and NIST reporst are conspiracies by definition btw



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join