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.

 

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

page: 13
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409



The laws of physics and experts are not with you. The molten flow of aluminum was seen from the corner where most of the aluminum airframe of United 175 was piled up.


Opinion not a proven fact yet.


And there is the problem with any conspiracy theory. A person can choose what facts they want to believe. And can see a scientific study and always find a way to say well they made that up. Or they forgot about this. I find it funny that people still even argue this. At this point even if it was fake there is no way to prove it. To much time has passed and if it hasn't been proved wrong by now it to late.

I'll tell you what're I have a problem with it takes weeks of work to set up a building for demolition.. You have to set up charges cut support beams figure the timing for each explosive they can't all just fire at once not that simple. So if it was controlled how did they do it with people working in the building I would think people would notice wires going everywhere. The drilling through the floor that would have been required the exposed walls to get to support beams. There is just no way to take that building some with hundreds of hours of work.




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



And there is the problem with any conspiracy theory. A person can choose what facts they want to believe. And can see a scientific study and always find a way to say well they made that up. Or they forgot about this. I find it funny that people still even argue this. At this point even if it was fake there is no way to prove it. To much time has passed and if it hasn't been proved wrong by now it to late.

I'll tell you what're I have a problem with it takes weeks of work to set up a building for demolition.. You have to set up charges cut support beams figure the timing for each explosive they can't all just fire at once not that simple. So if it was controlled how did they do it with people working in the building I would think people would notice wires going everywhere. The drilling through the floor that would have been required the exposed walls to get to support beams. There is just no way to take that building some with hundreds of hours of work.


Exactly!! Many folks are not aware of what it takes to bring down a steel frame building, and if the preparation is not properly completed, the results will be what we saw in 1993 when terrorist detonated a large bomb beneath WTC1, which left its steel columns standing within the huge bomb crater.

There was no way that such a preparation could have been conducted in a crowded building without attracting a lot of unwanted attention.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

They have wireless microphones these days, and I suspect they also have wireless detonators.

The preparation went on for months, and one tenant was on record right after it happened that tenants had been advised that on the weekend before, all electricity would be off for a few hours.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Preparation went on for months, and power was off for a few hours? So, I am sure you can present someone who remembers having their offices torn apart for weeks while demolition charges were installed right? Oh, right. They prepared for months and then went in, ripped off drywall, planted all the charges, repaired, taped, sanded and repainted the walls in a few hours.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



They have wireless microphones these days, and I suspect they also have wireless detonators.


That won't work because there were no secondary explosions when the aircraft struck and no secondary explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. In fact, there are no demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Since the impacts were violent enough to dislodge fire protection from the steel columns, any explosives attached would have been dislodged and rendered useless.



The preparation went on for months, and one tenant was on record right after it happened that tenants had been advised that on the weekend before, all electricity would be off for a few hours.


You cannot properly prepare a building the size of the WTC Towers for demolition in a weekend. It takes many weeks of preparation. In Corpus Christi, Texas, it took months just to prepare a bridge for demolition and that was nothing compared to what it would have taken to prepare the WTC buildings for explosive demolition.


edit on 15-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596



Preparation went on for months, and power was off for a few hours? So, I am sure you can present someone who remembers having their offices torn apart for weeks while demolition charges were installed right? Oh, right. They prepared for months and then went in, ripped off drywall, planted all the charges, repaired, taped, sanded and repainted the walls in a few hours.




Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

www.representativepress.org...


Now, we can take a look here and listen to the experts.



What the Experts Have Said

Initial opinions and analysisImpact locations for 1 (right) and 2 WTCThe first person to theorize that the buildings collapsed due to structural failure due to fire was actually an eye-witness Fox News freelancer named Mark Walsh. At 11:55 am on September 11, Walsh was asked about what he saw from his apartment. "... I was watching with my roommate. It was approximately several minutes after the first plane had hit. I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just ream right into the side of the Twin Tower exploding through to the other side, and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first, and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at theUniversity of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable.Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

On September 13, 2001, Zdeněk Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, circulated a draft paper with results of a simple analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Bažant suggested that heat from the fires was a key factor, causing steel columns in both the core and the perimeter to weaken and experience deformation before losing their carrying capacity and buckling. Once more than half of the columns on a particular floor buckled, the overhead structure could no longer be supported and complete collapse of the structures occurred. Bažant later published an expanded version of this analysis. Other analyses were conducted by MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm, who also described a collapse mechanism on September 21, 2001. They later contributed to an MIT collection of papers on the WTC collapses edited by Eduardo Kausel called The Towers Lost and Beyond.

edit on 15-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Geesh. You guys make such good points! Why on earth do these demolition companies waste their time and money with explosives to bring down tall, steel structured buildings when they could just wrecking ball a few floors, throw some fuel inside and set it on fire to bring them down?

Or like WTC 7, just wrecking ball a corner and then set some paper and desks on fire.

It's crazy how these demolition companies rip their customers off. Must totes be a scam type business.


edit on 15-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah we should start doing it that way. Its a great way to demolish several blocks at once, who cares if they knock down other buildings in the process....



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah we should start doing it that way. Its a great way to demolish several blocks at once, who cares if they knock down other buildings in the process....



Well, I am sure if they can strategically place explosives to demolish high rise steel frame buildings, then they can strategically use fire to do the same. Especially with WTC 7 as a guide given it only damaged a small portion of the western façade of the Verizon Building....and *cough* it wasn't even 'strategically' demolished.
edit on 15-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thank you for confirming you don't know jack about fire....or demolitions for that matter. Have a good evening.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Thank you for confirming you don't know jack about fire....or demolitions for that matter. Have a good evening.


Nope. Never claimed to. But I do have reasoning skills and if two of the tallest buildings in the U.S. could be brought down by fire and only cause one other building to fall in THAT section of the city -- without any planning whatsoever --- it stands to reason that fire could be easily set with fuel to strategically bring down more remotely placed buildings.

I watched a fifteen story building being brought down about a quarter mile from my house last summer. It took all summer with a wrecking ball. I don't know why they didn't just use fire. It wasn't close enough to any other homes or buildings to catch them on fire or damage them.




posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Don't claim reasoning skills and then put forward that idea. Its silly.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Don't claim reasoning skills and then put forward that idea. Its silly.



Exactly. But that's what 'randomly' happened on 9/11.

*drops the mic*



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye should have dropped the mic long ago. Before you highlighted the flaws in your thinking.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye should have dropped the mic long ago. Before you highlighted the flaws in your thinking.



But it was SOOOO much better to wait until you said the official explanation was silly.

It's all in the timing.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Umm, no i didn't say that. You said that setting fires would be an easier way to demolish buildings, a patently stupid idea because of the unpredictability of fire. So, what you THINK is some sort of victory, once again only highlights the flaws in your thinking.



posted on Sep, 15 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409


Im sorry sir but with all due respect... You have been debunked repeatedly. You have been running in circles ever since you were bebunked the first time. It's ok to be wrong that is part of learning and it helps to deflate your denial. This grows tiring after a while. For you for us ATS subscribers to go through all the regurgitated tripe you have produced. Time to do whats best for this thread and for you and give it a rest.

Thanks and good night

-DF


edit on 15-9-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DarthFazer



m sorry sir but with all due respect... You have been debunked repeatedly.


Your comment won't fly and the challenge for you is to prove me wrong with scientific facts and evidence, and do it in front of the readers here.

Present scientific evidence that proves me wrong and I don't want to hear that the sound of an explosion is evidence of demo explosives because that won't fly either in light of the fact that people who reportedly heard explosions later attributed the explosions they heard to things that had nothing do with explosives..

Explosive-like sounds are not scientific evidence that prove explosives were responsible because there are many things that mimic the sound of an explosion. Molten aluminum from the aircraft and from the aluminum facade of the WTC Towers coming into contact with water will generate explosions as well.

Explosions have occurred in previous years at the WTC complex, which had nothing to do with explosives with the exception of the 1993 bombing. In one case, an explosion resulted in a fire in one of the WTC buildings, and that too, had nothing to do with explosives. I might also add that manhole explosions are quite common in New York City.

Are you willing to take up my challenge to produce scientific evidence that proves me wrong? Yes or no. Any attempt at deception will be revealed to all.
edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Geesh. You guys make such good points! Why on earth do these demolition companies waste their time and money with explosives to bring down tall, steel structured buildings when they could just wrecking ball a few floors, throw some fuel inside and set it on fire to bring them down?

It's crazy how these demolition companies rip their customers off. Must totes be a scam type business.


Because explosive implosions of steel frame buildings is an art that requires structural pre-weakening, the removal of firewalls and the weakening of staircases, precise timing of cutter charges such as RDX and addition explosives to push the steel columns into a certain direction after the cutter charges have done their work. Each building requires a different approach to the demolition process due to the differences in construction.

The use of fire is not precised nor a practical method to use to demolish steel frame buildings. It is evident that the collapse of the WTC Towers was not precised at all. After all, how many surrounding buildings were heavily damaged or destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed? What would have become of a demolition company had that been a true demolition that resulted such massive damage to the surrounding buildings?

The fact that surrounding buildings were heavily damage is proof that the Twin Towers did not fall within their footprints.

Now, you know why fire is not practical to use to demolish steel frame buildings. Now, you know why thermite would not have been practical as well.



Or like WTC 7, just wrecking ball a corner and then set some paper and desks on fire.


You still have to follow typical preparations in regard to WTC7 as well. After all, WTC7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse. How many of the surrounding buidings were damaged when WTC7 collapsed?

A demolition company creating such havoc due to such mistakes would not look very good as it faced many lawsuits in court. Now, you know why fire is not a practical means to demolish steel frame buildings. Truthers, who do not understand the demolition process, tend to overlook those little details and as a result, they concoct unfounded conspiracy theories. I might add that demo explosives make a lot of noise that can be heard for many miles away, which I knew during my wartime experiences.

Now, you know why I challenged truthers to point out time lines where demo explosives are heard in the videos that depict the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.
edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Preparation went on for months, and power was off for a few hours? So, I am sure you can present someone who remembers having their offices torn apart for weeks while demolition charges were installed right? Oh, right. They prepared for months and then went in, ripped off drywall, planted all the charges, repaired, taped, sanded and repainted the walls in a few hours.


No sir, that's not what I'm saying.

I am saying that the charges themselves were placed and arranged in the months before.

Then, on the weekend before, the charges and detonating system were "armed" . Obviously there was an electrical component involved, and the reason for the weekend shutdown was to allow the system to be armed properly.



new topics




 
27
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join