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: 6
48
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Has anyone been able to view this episode yet? I asked this earlier in the thread but never got a response.

I'm on the OTG site again now and although I see a few new clips since the last time I checked after reading the OP this one still doesn't seem to be up there.

Is it just me or has this episode not yet been put up on the OTG site?


TIA.




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008

Got a source for the what you just put up?
And again, Turner constrctuion was working on the towers up until the date of the attacks
www.visibility911.org...
Even getting the floors that got hit...
And mr Morse didn't go high enough, he didn't get past the 78th floor, that is just barley the impact zone of one of the towers and a good 10 stories below where the other one hit... Also he would have failed to see the new renovations done by turner construction....


Do you HONESTLY think that the impacts would not remove the sprayed on fire protection considering that the movement of the building due to wind loading could cause it.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Not sure, but as you said, they spend millions on the fireproofing of these towers seems if the builder built the towers with that possibility in mind then they would fireproof with that in mind as well.
Sure the direct impact floors have a low chance of keeping 100% integrity, but the surrounding floors would have been fine.

Not so sure what to make of what you say after considering..." that the movement of the building due to wind loading could cause it"

It sounds like you are getting at the the towers were swaying due to wind after the impacts..?
If so,then no I don't think that would knock off more protection, I am sure they were aware of the sway when they sprayed it..
But I could be reading that wrong



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

You can hold a 5 pound sledge, too. But if I smack you with it, it's going to kill you. Why? Because one is static, the other is kinetic.

Horrible analogy. First, a five pound sledge is made of far thicker material than Cestrup is and if you held it proportionately, to the towers of course, and dropped it the equal of one story falling - would you like to bet it doesn't crash though me all the way to the bottom.

No you're not picking up mass either as the floors fall. What weight was added to the building for this mass gain you speak of?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam

No you're not picking up mass either as the floors fall. What weight was added to the building for this mass gain you speak of?



As each floor lets go under the impact and falls, its mass is added to the weight that's coming down. No weight need be added 'to the building'. One floor falling becomes two, then three until you have a huge amount of mass crashing down. The tiny bit that's lost as ejecta is trivial.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

One, there's no proof of this whatsoever. There's no "pancaking" at any level of the debris field. Two, the reason why I'm stating there's no mass added is because there is no mass added. Mass is being ejected as the building pummels downward. You're getting close to "dynamic load" but failing to see your errors. The building always supported that "falling mass" you describe. I've just never observed the so called "pile driver" in any of the videos of collapse. And it sure as heck isn't evident at the top of the debris pile.

Also, these buildings, when constructed - were claimed to hold strong no matter a collision of any aircraft at that time. I'll take their word over this flimsy scenario of trying to explain the collapse sans explosives.

I've got a question - why weren't explosives ever considered? Ever. Seeing as these buildings were targeted in '93 why couldn't terrorists use some explosives along with the collisions? Shouldn't all evidence be considered?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam

One, there's no proof of this whatsoever. There's no "pancaking" at any level of the debris field. Two, the reason why I'm stating there's no mass added is because there is no mass added. Mass is being ejected as the building pummels downward. You're getting close to "dynamic load" but failing to see your errors. The building always supported that "falling mass" you describe. I've just never observed the so called "pile driver" in any of the videos of collapse. And it sure as heck isn't evident at the top of the debris pile.


You're being deliberately obtuse to protect your point of view. Each floor adds mass to the falling load. You understand that but are desperately tapdancing around it. Yes, you do see it in the videos. It's what you guys call 'squibs'.



Also, these buildings, when constructed - were claimed to hold strong no matter a collision of any aircraft at that time. I'll take their word over this flimsy scenario of trying to explain the collapse sans explosives.

I've got a question - why weren't explosives ever considered? Ever. Seeing as these buildings were targeted in '93 why couldn't terrorists use some explosives along with the collisions? Shouldn't all evidence be considered?


Ever see a building prepped for explosive demolition? Do you honestly think you could do that with people working there?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup

I've got a question - why weren't explosives ever considered?


because there was zero evidence for any explosives being used.
Exactly when and how were explosives laid in the buildings?


Shouldn't all evidence be considered?


It was, and there was zero evidence for explosives!

Or do you have some evidence explosives were used?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

The squibs are evidence of pancaking? And this falling load - is it heavy or lighter than what stood before it? Like stated before - this building was a death trap in your eyes.

Maybe you should explain to demo experts that they can just start momentum at the top of a building and let the "load" do the rest. Or just look for that one lucky column and sever it with some heat and watch a building fall like it was planned to. It literally amazes me that these are the only explanations you'll believe.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I think a buildings collapsing at near free fall speeds or another building achieving free fall should warrant as evidence. But 9/11 was a day of firsts and questioning these happenings, outside of official narrative, means you hate your country and wear tinfoil.

Weren't the towers blacked out for nearly 48 hrs before 9/11.? Like that weekend before? I guess I'd plant them then. I mean, you must think a team of black ops are retarded. You'd think they'd plan something of this magnitude and just prance by office workers with explosives. You trust them to be extremely sleek in other counties in pulling off operations, why couldn't a similar task force do the same here? See, my mind night not work like yours. I'm perfectly fine in knowing that just because I can't plan it, doesn't mean someone else couldn't. So, do you have all the security footage of a 3 buildings and have you interviewed everyone in all 3 buildings or did you just believe the reports like Johnny Patriot?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: hellobruce

I think a buildings collapsing at near free fall speeds


Well, as WTC 1&2 did not fall near free fall speed...


should warrant as evidence.


Just why do you think that is evidence of explosives?


Weren't the towers blacked out for nearly 48 hrs before 9/11.?


No.... Your evidence for that cl;aim is what?


Like that weekend before?


no, what makes you claim that?


I guess I'd plant them then.


Just how many people do you think it would take to rig a building up for demolition in a weekend? Rig it so no one working there would notice the tonnes of explosives or KM of cable, or the holes punched in the walls......

Also there was no evidence of any explosives being used....



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I don't think it would take all that long to blast the core out allowing for the collapse in sequential form. This isn't a neat collapse like you witnessed at the Kingdome. And there's people who worked in the towers who claimed this black out happened, but since CNN didn't tell you - you probably will ad hom this source


911blogger.com...
edit on 24-4-2014 by cestrup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
I don't think it would take all that long to blast the core out allowing for the collapse in sequential form


your experience in building demolition is what exactly?


And there's people who worked in the towers who claimed this black out happened,


There is much more evidence it did not happen....

www.911myths.com...
edit on 24-4-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam

The squibs are evidence of pancaking? And this falling load - is it heavy or lighter than what stood before it? Like stated before - this building was a death trap in your eyes.



The "squibs" are the compressed air blowing out the windows and some of the facade as the floors above collapse onto that floor.

eta: I'm waiting for you to bring up nuclear weapons, it's usually the next step in the dance.

edit on 24-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

So your link admits there was a power down than assumes that the perps used sticks of dynamite. Did you read it or?..

Nice tactics but I'm glad I have a mind that uses critical thought, or I'd let this rhetoric convince me. It only disputes one witness (I gave two) well after the fact of Forbes testimony and assumes that the black ops squad used the same tactics as a demolition team (but demo teams don't have to be discreet). So, do you think dynamite is the only way to blow things up? My guess is that highly militarized counties have ways of making things go boom that civilians don't know about.

But hey, all it took was a ticket to convince you. A piece of paper with typing on it that could have been forged by a seventh grader circa 1995. Look, there's multitudes of websites that pop up every time some damning evidence comes up. If this wasn't a conspiracy, why would anyone care about what Forbes said? Let that sink in



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I already claimed I didn't know what the explosives were nor will I pretend to. Don't marginalized me if you want to appear as if you're still trying to have a conversation. That's all this is, right? Is it okay that I believe the buildings were brought down by something more than I've been official told?

Air? Nope. Explain how it gets 30+ stories below? And multiple locations at once? And that "air" is flinging ejecta and dust all the way down. Maybe that's the conspiracy! SUPER AIR!

img360.imageshack.us...
edit on 24-4-2014 by cestrup because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam

Air? Nope. Explain how it gets 30+ stories below? And multiple locations at once? And that "air" is flinging ejecta and dust all the way down. Maybe that's the conspiracy! SUPER AIR!


Speaking of something super, maybe you can explain why the explosive's overpressure wave doesn't take out the windows across the entire building at the same time. It doesn't take more than 1 psi, usually less, even for tempered glass.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Don't know? I'd have to know what type of explosive we were talking about. Since I don't, I can't answer that. (Please don't use my honesty as some type of victory, neither of us truly know). But why is there air 30+ stories below? See, no one questions these when they are observed in a building demolition. But on 9/11 - there's no ****ing way that's an explosion, man!



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Bedlam
But on 9/11 - there's no ****ing way that's an explosion, man!


Because it's not - at least not a explosive demolition. You won't find any that have the glass left in, because it will shatter the instant the charges fire. And yeah, I truly know, it's one of my little talents from my Army phase. It doesn't take bupkes to break glass if you set off a charge in a closed area. If you've got a big enough charge to cut steel, it's going to rip the glass and part or all of the facade off too, which is why they strip that in buildings where the charges are for demolition.

eta: edit for clarification. Also - I've used thermite a lot too, it's not a "cutter charge".
edit on 24-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

SPOILER ALERT - IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN "FIGHT CLUB" YET FIRST ASK YOURSELF 'WHY NOT?' AND SECONDLY, DO NOT READ THIS POST OR WATCH THE VIDEO

As David Fincher's documentary shows, when studied frame by frame and pixel by pixel for hours on end to determine just how 911 occurred two years previously than most people assume it did, the windows do not all pop out when the charges are set off, but just kind of shake, except where they don't.



SPOILER UNALERT, YOU CAN COME BACK NOW




top topics



 
48
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join