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: 12
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Sure if that is what it takes for you to see it...
but there is no chunk of building in the way... well there is above the left wing impact, but the planes didn't hit parallel to the ground, one side dipped down




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Looks more like the bat symbol..... which was actually burned into a building in one of the movie ads.

link

Not sure if theres anything to read into that, im definitely not suggesting batman pulled 9/11
edit on b4545959 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
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.


Well just let me refresh YOUR memory again what is this threads title


Where Did the Towers Go!!!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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


The hole wasn't an EXACT plane shape which your looney tune reference would infer!!!

The Floors of the towers were never designed to support the floor above that is the point you DON'T get.
Each floor was suspended on the steel angles shown in this picture between the outer wall and core wall.
The connections were designed to support the load of the floor, office equipment etc and had a safety factor applied.

Tower Perimeter Steel

The reason this picture was used it was the first I found using an image search with the components labeled!!!
I didn't care were it came from and didn't look as all I wanted was a picture to show you people how the construction looked.

The you have the usual links to building fires now of those fires how many fit the following to be compared to the towers.

110 FLOORS HIGH
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE due to aircraft impact.
TUBE in TUBE design of structural steel with suspended floors.

Pick the one you like the best and I will show you all the FACT'S that site ignores!!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 02:48 AM
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!


WOW just think all that money spent on high speed cameras that are used to film high speed collisions to see every tiny detail of the interaction can NOW be REPLACE by cestrup watching a 30 fps compressed youtube video the science and engineering community will now be in your debt.

They can now film there experiments on there smartphone post it to youtube and let you give your opinion.

No need to film things at this speed anymore





posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

...Yes I understand it wasn't an exact image.. That is why when the other poster but the two pictures up I said it wasn't that same thing... It is ludicrous to think you will get an exact outline. But what we do see is pretty damn clsoe... big hole where the fuselage would be and then long skinny holes where the wings hit. If you want to take it literal extreme then have fun.



The Floors of the towers were never designed to support the floor above that is the point you DON'T get.

No I get this point, well I get where you are trying to go with it. So i will ask again, if one floor were to fail, would we have seen the same global garvity fed collapse?
Seems strang that this massive central core would at some point stop.... Or if it was just the floors collapsing down, where did the core go?
home.comcast.net...
And I understand that all you did was find a picture and post it, just saying that you see where it is coming form, cause again what you showed was highlighting the strength of how the building was designed to hold up the floors, which I found funny that you posted it trying to prove the opposite

Well the link is more geared toward 7, as as I said after I linked it, or said that 1 and 2 had planes that hit them.
So i am sure this will get side stepped by you but answer why the buildings I linked and 7 did meet the same fate. And I already showed that nist says the damage to the building had nothing to do with the collapse
edit on thMon, 28 Apr 2014 12:34:50 -0500America/Chicago420145080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Hi I suggest you look at this again.


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


WTC 7 Had structural damage a chunk out of a side elevation and a 20 storey gash in the south elevation documented by the NYFD and fires left to burn for 6 hours.

Now as for you link all those buildings had only ONE thing in common with the Towers or WTC 7 that was a fire.

Not constructed using the same methods and if you read the reports for example the Windsor Tower Madrid the steel part of the structure collapsed after 2.5 hours the CONCRETE part did not.

The Beijing Mandarin Hotel.


The boot-shaped high-rise has an exterior steel framework, much of which will be stripped away and rebuilt, and a concrete interior portion that can be salvaged.


As for WTC 7 some reports made by NYFD



Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.


or


then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight


or


Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


As for the one floor comment it may have we will never know but a lot MORE than one floor dropped on both towers!!



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Usually when you quote some one you link where the quote is coming from, especially if there is no name or anything attached to what is being said.

Still not sure how debris could be falling onto building 7...I understand that the massive debris cloud came and hit the tower.. Not sure how much of that attributed to this 20 floor gash. The one that is only available in a couple pictures and some angels form a select few videos. Most of the time is blocked by all the smoke coming out of the building. Which brings us back to the big bad, tower destroying boogie man that is fire.
That led to that one coloum failing and bringing the whole building down.
Another death trap just waiting for fire to create the one thing that could bring down the entire building with almost no resistance, as shown by the 2.3 second free fall the building achieved.


“Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii


The damage that was caused by the debris is not what initiated the collapse, as per nist
It also does not account for the fact the the building did reach free fall
And of course we have the air getting pushed out the sides of the building very rapidly.
www.911truth.org...

911research.wtc7.net...
Here is a bunch more witness statements talking about explosions through out the the day.
Go crazy on youtube and you will see it from the firefighters them self's



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Easy cut & paste into Google or use sites other than truther sites try debunking 9/11 for lots of quotes made by the NYFD unless of course your one of the people calling those guys LIARS


As for WTC 7 when do you think it started to collapse


Do you think it fell straight down



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

If anyone really wants to know the truth about Judy Wood, they won't have to look very far.

Her credibility goes completely out the door once one takes a few minutes to watch the following video where she's interviewed by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics. While watching her throughout the video, she appears unable to recall her own calculations, figures, or even the basics of her own "work"


Is she drunk? I drink far too much and she sounds like me, i cant remember the names of stuff either and she cant remember much.

Plus she looks like a drunk, I dont look like I drink too much yet but she looks like she drinks.

Jesse Ventura rules though, climbing for cash...name that film!!



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SirDrinksalot

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

If anyone really wants to know the truth about Judy Wood, they won't have to look very far.

Her credibility goes completely out the door once one takes a few minutes to watch the following video where she's interviewed by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics. While watching her throughout the video, she appears unable to recall her own calculations, figures, or even the basics of her own "work"


Is she drunk? I drink far too much and she sounds like me, i cant remember the names of stuff either and she cant remember much.

Plus she looks like a drunk, I dont look like I drink too much yet but she looks like she drinks.

Jesse Ventura rules though, climbing for cash...name that film!!


It is obvious that Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins does not accept or is open to the possibillity that some secretive energy technology is used to make these towers go "dustified". Because of just this angle in questioning the interview is doomed to go sideways. Therefore Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins has a strong hand to make things look silly and causes Dr Wood to be confused and insecure. Dr Wood has not much to hold onto...the only thing she can be sure of is about WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TOWERS.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I won't call the people at dubunking 911 liars, I will say that they seem to think every single comment the firefights made were either taken out of context or they weren't really describing what they saw, only what they think they saw, or calling them liars but with out actually doing so...

I think explosives started the collapse, not the failure of column 79 caused by never before seen thermal expansion.
NIST even decided to omit the grider and the stiffners.. Strange how that works out huh?

The top section of the building fell straight down when it was in free fall
but after that it would be hard to classify it as "straight down", that feels like a trap phrase. I will say it fell almost in its own foot print .



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara

Dr Jenkis is not steering or coaching that interview, he is just asking the questions and dr woods has a heck of time trying to answer them with her own work.
He quotes her own work and she can't recall any of it.
She grabs that picture and tries to run with that and it doesn't do her any good.
The "what happened to the towers" is a good question but she doesn't have much to answer it.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Best 9/11 book I have read to date. This one is listed as fiction, but I honestly think this story is true and being told through a "tale". The story includes some talk about the towers collapse. Maybe at the end of the day the towers did fall on their own, but the chain of events leading up to the fall of the twins is without a doubt an inside job.

www.amazon.com...



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IroncladFT

Still pushing the able danger rewrite huh?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IroncladFT

Still pushing the able danger rewrite huh?


I think there is something to it...probably not, but the conspiracy in me thinks so. Plus ever since discovering them and reading how FBI Agent John O'Neil (the only man close to nabbing Bin Laden before 9/11, then pulled off the case) was killed in the towers on 9/11 during a meeting he was told to come to that very morning out of the blue....yeah..I am hooked..lol



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: IroncladFT

So push the O'Neil story, that has some merit to it and skips the step of you promoting the book...
Sounds like the book is taking old known info and putting the fiction twist on it to sell books.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

True, I am definitely going to dive in further on O'Neil, reading that a few days ago made me want to dig. I never knew he was killed on 9/11 before then and called to a meeting on a floor near the roof was interesting to me. Anyway...I'll check it out...thanks



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008

I won't call the people at dubunking 911 liars, I will say that they seem to think every single comment the firefights made were either taken out of context or they weren't really describing what they saw, only what they think they saw, or calling them liars but with out actually doing so...

I think explosives started the collapse, not the failure of column 79 caused by never before seen thermal expansion.
NIST even decided to omit the grider and the stiffners.. Strange how that works out huh?

The top section of the building fell straight down when it was in free fall
but after that it would be hard to classify it as "straight down", that feels like a trap phrase. I will say it fell almost in its own foot print .


Well reading what debunking 911 shows regarding NYFD quotes I would say they believe what the firemen said it's the truther sites that take what is said out of context!

Well as for explosives taking out WTC7 you linked to other tower fires that the truther sites always link to although none of the buildings were of similar size or construction or suffered impact damage from aircraft yet if you read the reports although they were a combination of reinforced concrete & steel , the steel seemed to fail due to fire!!!!

The fires in WTC 7 burned for more than 6 hours the steelwork on the Windsor Tower in Madrid that the truther sites like to use COLLAPSED after 2.5 hours the concrete survived.

It wasn't a trap phrase not unless you blindly quote what truther sites claim and don't look at the videos and pictures after the collapse for yourself.
edit on 30-4-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

IMO debunking 911 takes the quotes out of context, or just act as if the quote is taken out of context when in reality it isn't.
Or again, just say the firefighters were not really seeing what they say the saw or hearing what they heard...

Yes obviously all the towers were not the same, but the basic idea was there. High rise steel structures.
And wtc 7 did not suffer impact damage from an aircraft and for the thrid time nist has said that the damage done by the debris did not initiate the collapse.

I am glad your official story site was able to find something from one of those towers to spin, its funny they chose to focus on the concrete still standing. Didn't wtc have some concrete in it?
I am sure you can explain to me while in the madrid tower the steel failed but the concrete was fine.
So if that is the case then we would be able to say the concrete was fine in 7??
And if that is so then how did the tower reach freefall? Would the intact concrete in the tower not offer some resistance at that point?

It is debated able how long the fire in WTC 7 burned, since most the fires would have been out of view and firefighters were told not to go into the building at 11.... so where do we get this account of uncontrollable fires for 6 hours?

It was a trap phrase, it was quite obvious too so maybe work on that one for the next guy you try it on.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join