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.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 10
89
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

Sorry, there were only two cases like 911, only two twin towers, both slammed at hundreds of miles per hour with gas filled airliners, both burned for an hour unchecked and both fell down.

Are you saying anything that doesn't agree with that?

Make sure you bring your best no plane nano thematic I don't know squat about real demolition with explosives line of BS…


Yeah, go ahead start acting like a child.

I don't agree with your assumption that fire will melt, or even weaken steel. Ever cooked your own water in a metal pot over a fire? Did the pot melt or become weak?

It's not rocket science.

soulwaxer




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


I'd like someone to point out how the sagging trusses could gather the strength to pull the structure apart, when it was stronger than the trusses actually were.

The anchors that held the trusses were weaker than the trusses. Once the floor let go, the whole floor fell 15 feet to the next and the next. The "dustification" was caused by a giant blender filled with steel girders and car sized blocks of cement that churned a hundred stories to the ground. And like a hollow body plane, there isn't much left thats recognizable as a plane (or a building).

We've been over this ground a few times.

Hollow towers
and like I have already pointed out, the top section of the building was falling to pieces before the bottom part began to move which means it was meeting resistance. Resistance which would have slowed and stopped the collapse front.

You "pointed out"? Here…
oh dear. Further back in the thread. And I also pointed out those kind of collapses are carried out after extensive demolition work is carried out inside the building to pre weaken it.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer


Ever cooked your own water in a metal pot over a fire? Did the pot melt or become weak?

It's not rocket science.

Wow. Thanks for that scientific heads up reply. Good day.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


it is interesting that you compare this crash site to Lockerbie as 103 was destroyed in the air. The destroyed parts of the aircraft created a much larger scar in the ground that the one 93 supposedly created. So how do smaller, damaged parts of an aircraft create a much larger hole than an entire aircraft hitting the ground in one piece?


The comparison was for one reason, to show the relative small size of craters from impact by airplane debris. The crater is never going to be as 'big as a jet liner', only the most densest parts are heavy enough to "make a crater".

Same question was asked at the pentagon… why is the hole so small?

An airline appears big but is mostly air (called an airframe) that is hollow with heavier parts like engines and landing gear.

The heavy denser parts make holes in the ground, not some "aluminum sheet metal".
so why weren't the aluminium sheets that made up the wings and fuselage left either on the surface or partially embedded in the ground? I don't believe they followed the more dense and solid parts of the aircraft into the holes made by them.

The parts are there, in tatters. And all around the site, in little bits. The usual result of a high speed impact with the ground. Thats why Military pilots sometimes refer to hi speed crashes as a "smoking hole in the ground". Theres not much left that even remotely resembles an air craft.

93 impact debris, use the zoom feature

Uuuuuhm... OK!

So what about all the people onboard? Did they all just evaporate into tiny molecules and disperse into the air? Or did they also bury themselves into the dirt 6 feet under? How convenient!

soulwaxer


Whats your point? And any kind of proof for your claim?

I didn't claim anything. I asked you 3 questions.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


oh dear. Further back in the thread. And I also pointed out those kind of collapses are carried out after extensive demolition work is carried out inside the building to pre weaken it.

To which I replied yah, impact and fire weakened the structure…

round and round. This is getting boring…



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

Sorry, there were only two cases like 911, only two twin towers, both slammed at hundreds of miles per hour with gas filled airliners, both burned for an hour unchecked and both fell down.

Are you saying anything that doesn't agree with that?

Make sure you bring your best no plane nano thematic I don't know squat about real demolition with explosives line of BS…


Yeah, go ahead start acting like a child.

I don't agree with your assumption that fire will melt, or even weaken steel. Ever cooked your own water in a metal pot over a fire? Did the pot melt or become weak?

It's not rocket science.

soulwaxer
fires that twisted steel, destroyed elevator shafts and blew a lobby up about 85 floors apart none the less. Fueled by at most, enough fuel to fill about 12 paddling pools.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soulwaxer

Sorry, there were only two cases like 911, only two twin towers, both slammed at hundreds of miles per hour with gas filled airliners, both burned for an hour unchecked and both fell down.

Are you saying anything that doesn't agree with that?

Make sure you bring your best no plane nano thematic I don't know squat about real demolition with explosives line of BS…


Yeah, go ahead start acting like a child.

I don't agree with your assumption that fire will melt, or even weaken steel. Ever cooked your own water in a metal pot over a fire? Did the pot melt or become weak?

It's not rocket science.

soulwaxer
fires that twisted steel, destroyed elevator shafts and blew a lobby up about 85 floors apart none the less. Fueled by at most, enough fuel to fill about 12 paddling pools.

85 floors no less indeed. How stupid does one have to be to believe that cr*p.

This isn't Hollywood, folks... this is real life.

soulwaxer



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sg1642


oh dear. Further back in the thread. And I also pointed out those kind of collapses are carried out after extensive demolition work is carried out inside the building to pre weaken it.

To which I replied yah, impact and fire weakened the structure…

round and round. This is getting boring…
yes it is. Extensive deliberate work to bring about a symmetrical collapse. Not asymmetrical and random damage bringing about a symmetrical collapse. You are using a video of controlled demolition and comparing it to the collapse because they are so similar. Need I say more.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

USAir 427.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

Sorry, forgot to read the manual. Didn't realize it was one theory per thread...



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I am always amazed at how many people think everyone cares. "I worked construction, I knew the buildings were gonna fall" etc etc.

IT'S A hollow tube, it's a core, it's post tensioned cables... (haha no mention of those from these construction guys. ) No mention that those building were in fact designed to take the damage from an airliner strike, albeit not as large as a 767. Also engineered to stand with half of its base columns destroyed. At the base, where All the weight is supported.

We build Skyscrapers to withstand hurricane force winds and earthquakes.

If it were just shear strength of bolts, lol. These building are often designed to sway in the wind.

No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint, other than controlled demo.



All you guys that just have to post your own opinions, like any one cares, about each piece of evidence makes these threads terribly dull.


I propose each poster ask themselves, " am I adding to the conversation, or am I just talking about myself"

Hard to deny ignorance if you can never deny your own ego.


I'm sure some one here has some engineering creds and the plans should be readily available, as well as the engineering studies done on said plans. Unless they've been scrubbed.


I have some creds, not enough to carry any real weight, but I will never claim them and open myself to scrutiny in a place such as this. A hearty thanks to those who do.


PS . Any one seen the G. Earth pic of the ravine/ditch, in PA, prior to the crater added in the middle?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint,


As the WTC towers never did that, why bring silly stories like that up?


about each piece of evidence makes these threads terribly dull.


Funny how some people think evidence and facts are dull, they prefer to bring up silly stories like holographic planes, or silent explosives or buildings falling into their own footprint etc.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint,


As the WTC towers never did that, why bring silly stories like that up?


about each piece of evidence makes these threads terribly dull.


Funny how some people think evidence and facts are dull, they prefer to bring up silly stories like holographic planes, or silent explosives or buildings falling into their own footprint etc.


Way to selectively edit. Borderline criminal in the second application.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint,


As the WTC towers never did that, why bring silly stories like that up?


about each piece of evidence makes these threads terribly dull.


Funny how some people think evidence and facts are dull, they prefer to bring up silly stories like holographic planes, or silent explosives or buildings falling into their own footprint etc.


Way to selectively edit. Borderline criminal in the second application.


PS. So they buildings are still standing? If not, Did they not fall at near free fall speeds? Did they fall over on their side?

Ever play jenga?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint,


As the WTC towers never did that, why bring silly stories like that up?


about each piece of evidence makes these threads terribly dull.


Funny how some people think evidence and facts are dull, they prefer to bring up silly stories like holographic planes, or silent explosives or buildings falling into their own footprint etc.
partial free fall and very close to it. This much was conceded by nist. Regardless of that they fell at much too high a speed to be meeting the kind of resistance as they fell that should have been present.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint,


As the WTC towers never did that, why bring silly stories like that up?


about each piece of evidence makes these threads terribly dull.


Funny how some people think evidence and facts are dull, they prefer to bring up silly stories like holographic planes, or silent explosives or buildings falling into their own footprint etc.
partial free fall and very close to it. This much was conceded by nist. Regardless of that they fell at much too high a speed to be meeting the kind of resistance as they fell that should have been present.


Thanks SG. The one part of my post that can be confirmed with the ubiquitous video and a stopwatch is what gets slammed.

The parts that take some thinking and research gets skipped in favor of a slanderous misquote, and someone's OPINION of the data.

Kind of the point I was making. Thanks btw.
edit on 15-2-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
We are all wasting our time as intrptr said. It's swings and roundabouts. Either way, the people behind it largely got away with it (western or middle eastern) and we have all learned very little from it.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If you look at what YOU presented, you will fail to support your comment.
There is NO similarity in the impact craters or the type of debris.

But it is not without use in proving that the 'plane' striking the Pentagon wasn't one. Note the enormous turbofan remnants at Lockerbie. Compare to the the tiny single one found in Washington.
The fact that the same titanium assemblages made no appearance in the towers wreckage is also suspicious but perhaps not as mysterious. There was a lot of metal wreckage for it to be lost in.
Not so at the Pentagon.

There is that annoying 47 story building collapse that just seems to float above the fray about planes.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You are bogus. See my other reply using your Lockerbie reference.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

There were parts of two engines found at the Pentagon. Portions of turbines and combustion chambers were found.
edit on 2/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
89
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join