It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
I rest my case.
originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: neutronflux
What I want to know is where the 500 thousand tonnes of each buildings steel and concrete went, there should have been a 16 story rubble pile at the base of each tower going by physics? but by the news footage on the day it was around 4 stories, a lot of mass turned to dust some how? That's if you believe the pancake theory...
Vaporizing the World Trade Center
Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.
The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.
So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.
originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: mrthumpy
What nicely packed into what 12 story sub basements, did not think they went down that far? Remember were looking for 1,000,000 tones concrete and steal for 2 buildings, let alone buildings seven 4,5, 6, and 7 which also had major damage.
I am just amazed by how strongly people defend the official conspiracy theory.
Why is it so hard to imagine if terrorists were capable of flying jets into skyscrapers that they could not also wire those buildings for demolition to achieve maximum terror.
The buildings collapsing at near free-fall speed is best explained by controlled demolition. It's just what the evidence suggests.
The video evidence suggests controlled demolition is the most likely explanation.
in reality there is no way in hell those buildings were not pulled by expert demolition company,
Im pretty fascinated with Dr. Judy Wood's, "dustification" theory. Not sure if Im completely on board with it, but her PHD in engineering and very, very solid science to back her claim is EXTREMELY convincing and highly respectable.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: amazing
That is why you have to start with validating the truth movement’s theories? And why they would push gross falsehoods? How could anyone buy in to Nukes at the WTC, or Dustification. Mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Push the falsehood the WTC steel was absolutely not inspected?
So, why would anyone argue and validate the official story if it is totally bogus? Like this rant of a thread?
The truth movement is vague on purpose? With only trying to put holes in what they consider the official narrative? And only aims to distract?
For the towers, what should I find more credible than floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns. The bowing caused buckling leading to collapse.
If someone is willing to push something that absolutely has no evidence like nukes for example, how can you find them credible?
The only thing that one can really do is find what has the most evidence. And if one pushes falsehoods concerning the towers’ collapse, then their whole credibility and judgement is in question?
Funny threads like this trying to poke holes in the “official account”, but never addresses the issue of the truth movement’s credibility.
Why is there never a thread about rooting out the charlatans of the truth movement, and how to repair its credibility?
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: InhaleExhale
The buildings fell too fast. Either all the energy goes into falling at a rate near the acceleration of gravity. Or, because of Newton's third law of motion, the buildings slow down as they collapse. The buildings did not slow down, therefore, the only hypothesis that fits the facts is controlled demolition
Same thing with saying two airplanes crashing into two buildings can bring down 3 buildings by fire. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by airplane!!! Newtons 3rd law of motion can't be ignored.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: dfnj2015
WTC 7, had a 1300 foot tall skyscraper collapse into it. The damage, got progressively worse the closer to the ground you got. FDNY members who survived that day commented on how heavily damaged the building was and that they expected it to fall. NO ONE who was there that day, was surprised when it fell. Hell the media was talking about it all afternoon.