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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 19
9
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Just google the pictures.
Easy as pie.




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


It's how the pictures are interpreted that matters.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

No it wasn't. The picture is still there and shows that falling steel can indeed penetrate another building.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's the 'sheared at welding joints' theory!

The welded joints came apart everywhere, instantly, like balsa wood, without resistance!!

Science cannot explain it, or replicate it, or show an example of it...


Saying it is so, that's good enough, right?


Some structural steel pieces ended up impaled in the American Express building, an incredible picture, quickly taken out of the official record.



You still have not explained what makes a Newton's cradle possible without explosives?

m.youtube.com...

Not only has the conversation of potential energy to kinetic energy caused the last ball to eject out, but also up? What makes that possible without explosives?

And why a building with 200,000 tons of steel, and weighing 500,000 tons, wouldn't have the energy to eject a 6 ton beam several hundred feet. A beam only .0012 percent of the weight of one tower? A building collapse with the equivalent energy release of 280 tons of explosives?



edit on 6-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Its complety nonsese!! there is no body!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Building falling over after earthquake creates dust cloud. No explosives used. Now imagine two buildings about 8 to 10s larger falling.

Building collapses after earthquake
m.youtube.com...

Buildings collapse during Nepal earthquake
www.cnn.com...

Buildings fall and create dust.


All sorts of things create dust, obviously.

It is the sheer volume of dust that is not possible in any collapse, without some external factor(s) involved, like a CD.

WTC dust blanketed half of Manhattan in dust. Which is only about 1/4 of it, as the rest went over water, and it was never mentioned afterwards.
.
Your videos show what really happens in a building collapse - nothing close to what happened in the WTC collapses.

You could take another 10 buildings in your video collapsing at the same time, within one block if each other, and it wouldn't blanket a city a foot deep in dust, like WTC did.

One more issue you din't understand is WHEN the dust was first created. At the point of initial collapse, which was 85+ floors up. There's no collapse at that point, or a moment after we saw anything of it.

Dust billowed out when it hadn't started to collapse, and even a few floors after that, it couldn't blow out such massive plumes of dust. Physics proves this, without a doubt. You cannot create this dust in a natural collapse. It doesn't matter what size the building, or the material used in the building, it is impossible to replicate.

Understand that all the dust created in the collapses of those other buildings was due to resistance. Right? The first building didn't create dust until it fell into another building, and the ground. The building collapsing ran into massive resistance, and THAT'S why it created dust.

What resistance was there in the twin towers when it hadn't started to collapse? What resistance was there from a concrete floor, just below it? There are calculations proving that the towers had NO resistance to the upper sections. The first floor, or the first ten floors, below the upper section, didn't slow down anything. That is an easily proven, scientific fact Each tower collapsed in near free fall speed. Even at half the speed of free fall doesn't work. The towers had 85 floors below the collapse, so each floor would have no more than 0.1 second of resistance to it. Like air resistance.

How do you get all that dust billowing out when nothing is even CREATING it?

Even grade 7 science students know that falling buildings create dust from resistance to the fall.

Without massive resistance to the collapse, the building does not create dust. Watch your own videos, and see for yourself.

Look at WTC 7, which had little dust. There should be massive dust clouds, from the resistance, going by your argument. So you all just ignore that WTC 7 issue, once again.


Of course, nothing needs to be proven in the real world, with 'computer models' on hand!!



edit on 8-8-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

One, there was no dust before collapse. See this video in link. Lots of smoke, ash, and soot.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

Two, the upper portion of each tower, I think 12 floors and 29 floors, buckeled at specific points, and slammed into the lower half of the buildings. ( No evidence or sound of explosives or thermite.)
Overloading floor connections and pulverizing drywall, concrete, and ceiling tiles.

Three, there was resistance. The towers and WTC 7 fell at about 60 percent of free fall speed. They did not fall at free fall speed.

Four, you created a false argument. I linked to whole town choked by dust after an earthquake from the collapsing of buildings.

Five, each tower released the potential energy equivalent to 280 tons of high pressure explosives. Each tower was over 100 floors, and each tower weighed over 500,000 tons. Each collapse released the power equivalent of 280 tons of explosives, pulverizing concrete, drywall, ceiling tiles, and releasing ash/soot.

Stop creating false narratives.

You give a theory why there was so much dust. And prove it was abnormal.

edit on 8-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's the 'sheared at welding joints' theory!

The welded joints came apart everywhere, instantly, like balsa wood, without resistance!!

Science cannot explain it, or replicate it, or show an example of it...


Saying it is so, that's good enough, right?


Oh there was resistance, just not as much as there should have been and remember these were vertical elements which only failed after the flimsy floors were ripped out leaving them unbraced by the outer walls. Outer walls suffered the same fate without the floors to support them.

Sounds more rational than the 'cut by invisible silent undetectable explosives' theory to me but it's lacking in the sensationalism. The way the buildings came down was determined by the way they were constructed decades earlier.


That's '"rational"?

Do you really believe that 3 buildings supported 400,000 tons of steel and concrete, then fail to resist anything in a split second, which all happens on the very same day?? Never before, or after, that day?

You can make anything sound plausible, the problem is that you need to prove it's possible, in the first place.

I can show you absolute proof that all buildings collapse at near free fall speeds because the supports have all been removed. They have no resistance to the collapse.

When 3 buildings collapsed on 9/11, at near free fall speed, that proved the supports were all removed beforehand.

What you are suggesting is that buildings can lose all supports,on their own, but it's just not something anyone can ever prove, or replicate, or show examples in reality.

Sorry, but without any proof, or replication, or a single example of it even existing, and never happening before, or after, just one same day....it's pure nonsense.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You contradicted yourself. If there was no resistance, the buildings would have fell at free fall speed. If the buildings fell nearly at free fall speed, then there was resistance. How close was the speed to free fall? Define nearly?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Another false narrative by you. The vertical columns buckeled. The buckling as videotaped captured no sounds of demolitions setting off, no explosions, no sparks, and no molten steel.

The buckling created a dynamic load that slammed into the lower portion of the static building. The dynamic load snapped floor connections that created a growing mass that snowballed the process.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I bet you can hold up 50lbs. But wonder how well you would stand up to a 50 lbs weight being dropped on your head from a distance of 10 foot. Bet you would fall at near free fall speed.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I think you need to study how those buildings were constructed to start to understand how they failed
EG where was that concrete you speak of and what grade was it?
And notice how the collapse front itself left sections of core and outer walls standing temporarily until they swayed around and fell almost as if they snapped like carrots under the bending strain. Remember the weak spots I showed earlier?

Not my job to convince you of anything though....
What you believe is your business


edit on 8/8/2017 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I guess only the floors of the towers fell at near free fall speed. The vertical columns fell due to a different mechanism, and way slower than free fall speed. In fact, the columns really didn't crumple. More like tumbled over when left unsupported.

So? there is one model for the floors of the towers.

Another model for the vertical columns of the towers?

Why would cutting steel with explosives or thermite produce drywall and concrete dust anyway?
edit on 8-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Core columns above the impact zone came down through the floors too, the falling mass went through the (comparatively) flimsy floors like they weren't there IE some resistance but too little of it because the floors were only intended to bear their own weight as well as stabilising the core and outer walls horizontally.

Lightweight concrete and drywall being smashed by massive steel sections would produce considerable amounts of dust
Thermite only comes into theories in an attempt to explain the lack of explosive demolition. It's really an impractical option for such a purpose though.
edit on 8/8/2017 by Pilgrum because: typing...



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Here is a video of a building implosion by explosives.

m.youtube.com...

The first round of blasts produced large bangs with no noticeable dust clouds. The second round of explosives produced some dust. It is clear the building collapsing produced over 90 percent of the dust. The explosives setting off contributed little to dust production.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Dust billowed out when it hadn't started to collapse, and even a few floors after that, it couldn't blow out such massive plumes of dust. Physics proves this, without a doubt.


so you can show the formula that proves this and input the figures and actually show us without a doubt?




All sorts of things create dust, obviously. It is the sheer volume of dust that is not possible in any collapse, without some external factor(s) involved, like a CD.


So controlled demolition uses bombs filled with dust or do they add bags of dust to the buildings?




I can show you absolute proof that all buildings collapse at near free fall speeds because the supports have all been removed.


Please do show and resolve this 16 years of nonsense.

Show with out a doubt, this absolute proof that support beams were removed?




When 3 buildings collapsed on 9/11, at near free fall speed, that proved the supports were all removed beforehand.


Is that the absolute proof?

GTFO



Seriously?




it's pure nonsense.



yes it is.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale


You need a formula to help you see the massive amounts of dust generated? How old were you when this happened?

The dust was massive, and impossible if the NIST story were true, that office fires caused these buildings to collapse at near free fall speeds.

Have you no common sense?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


You need a formula to help you see the massive amounts of dust generated? How old were you when this happened?

The dust was massive, and impossible if the NIST story were true, that office fires caused these buildings to collapse at near free fall speeds.

Have you no common sense?


How "impossible" was the massive amount of dust? The dust is the result of the collapse, regardless of the cause of collapse. All evidence says that the cause was not a planned demolition.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Like to talk about your pet theory for the WTC? How about those nuclear bombs?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale


You need a formula to help you see the massive amounts of dust generated? How old were you when this happened?

The dust was massive, and impossible if the NIST story were true, that office fires caused these buildings to collapse at near free fall speeds.

Have you no common sense?



Common sense?

NO

I can think for myself individually and don't need an ignorant society programming me with what is assumed common.

Seeing as you cant follow a simple conversation I think you might need a little more programing with that common sense you find so important.

I replied to poster saying that physics proves somethings, I asked for the calculation, for a formula that shows it proves whatever they claimed.

Can you supply it if you agree that physics proves without a doubt that dust shouldn't have come out the way it did?

This is what was claimed and what I asked for if its proven beyond doubt by physics, it should be simple to supply the formula.

Is it common sense that the towers came down from office fires?

Seriously the idiocy of such statements that have plagued the internet for 16 years is just amazing.

I really hope I have no common sense, I hope I can break free of the common sense you seem to possess If i am ever infected with such a vile disease.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join