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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 24
3
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
you know i'm begining to think that most of you have never seen a real controlled demolition. something stuck out in the OP that really made me chuckle.

see you say that they ignore physics..but show me a picture of the WTC collapsing neatly into it's footprints? for blood sake the thing had the ugliest most un uniformed collapse i've ever seen. it feel crooked and essentially fell away from it self as the collapse kept happening.

better yet, find me a CD that has ever been done from the top to bottom? Nobody can deny the towers collapsed from top, to bottom. if a person denys that..then that person's an idiot, i'm sorry. not that i'm calling anyone spesific an idiot, but i mean there's 100's of videos that show the collapse starting at the top, then working it's way out, and down. denying the WTC fell from top to bottom would be like tryin to deny that the sun exists.

CDs are done bottom to top. the building looses its lower footing, and then collapses on itself. the WTC did not do that. for it to be a CD you'd have to have the bottom floors explode to the top floors. ALSO YOU WOULD HAVE TO SOMEHOW MUFFLE THE SOUND OF THOUSANDS OF BOMBS GOING OFF AT ONCE.

but what can i do man, not my fault if you wish to believe in fairy tales.




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray are you honestly trying to say that 767's crashing into the building only caused minor damage?

Does that even make sense to anyone?


You might as well show the entry wound from a .45 caliber hollow point and say "the amount of brain matter taken out is unknown but it is most definitely a minority."


If it's unknown, how is it most definitely a minority?

How is anything unknown definitive either way?



[edit on 12-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

Wasn't the WTC designed to withstand a impact from a jet of that proportion?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Buildings are only meant to stand, not host the consciousness of a complex animal. The global structure still functioned after the impacts, and it would take more than a majority of column failure to bring any given floor down. The planes took out >15%. That's all there is to it. Those are facts.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Spawwwn

better yet, find me a CD that has ever been done from the top to bottom? Nobody can deny the towers collapsed from top, to bottom. if a person denys that..then that person's an idiot, i'm sorry. not that i'm calling anyone spesific an idiot, but i mean there's 100's of videos that show the collapse starting at the top, then working it's way out, and down. denying the WTC fell from top to bottom would be like tryin to deny that the sun exists.




If you truly understood how WTC 1 and 2 were constructed you would unerstand that it IS possible for these building to collapse from the 'top' down after the core being destroyed. Last time I checked the outer perimeter not only had incredible lateral load bearing capabilites but gravitational load bearing capability as well. In fact, the last numbers I saw was 40%.. yes thats right.. the outer 'shell' of the building was able to hold up 40% of the weight of the building. With this in mind and considering that it's obvious the core was knocked out, the building would have fallen EXACTLY the way it did. You can bet your bottom dollar that those perimeter collumns and it's 'netting' attached to it put up one hell of a fight as the center fell 'peeling' the outer shell down with it.




[edit on 16-2-2007 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
originally found on p8 www.abovetopsecret.com... reposted, because links went dead, only thumbnails work, so you'll have to open them to compare...


Originally posted by Long Lance

all images clickable for larger version

first collapse





second





third (wtc #7) resized, so this time my link





collapse of wtc7 in the last pic starts (if i'm not mistaken) with the second series of spikes which can be seen by comparing signal proliferation times, like LabTop has already done


strange stuff outside the boundaries is distorted text, which i left in on purpose


personal comments: wtc7's precursor events appear to be even stronger than the other two, i'd really like to know what was in the basement, especially considering that bldg.7's remains were alledgedly on fire for ~3 months.




posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray are you honestly trying to say that 767's crashing into the building only caused minor damage?

Does that even make sense to anyone?


You might as well show the entry wound from a .45 caliber hollow point and say "the amount of brain matter taken out is unknown but it is most definitely a minority."


If it's unknown, how is it most definitely a minority?

How is anything unknown definitive either way?



[edit on 12-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

Wasn't the WTC designed to withstand a impact from a jet of that proportion?


Sure it was, but it was meant to withstand an impact from a jet that wandered off course in the fog and hit the building. Meaning that it would have been going at a much slower speed.

The planes that hit these towers were basically going full throttle. The energy(damage) transferred into these buildings was exponentially higher than what was ever expected.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReadilyUnavailable
The planes that hit these towers were basically going full throttle. The energy(damage) transferred into these buildings was exponentially higher than what was ever expected.


Even if this is true, which I seriously doubt, then it's still no big deal in regards to why the buildings actually fell. The plane impacts severed a clear minority of columns. This is just tough luck that you have to deal with in terms of the official story. FEMA's report showed in chapter 2 that the columns severed, and even damaged at all by the plane impacts, were way too few to contribute much structural instability on their own. Two reasons for this: one is that the impacts only knocked out about 11% and 13% of the perimeter columns on the floors impacted, and the other reason is that those buildings were massively redundant structures, meaning they had a lot more structural strength than they actually needed to stand. This is why the buildings hardly even budged, let alone collapsed, when they were impacted.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I know that we keep talking about "how hot does it have to be to melt steel. But one must also consider, how hot doesit need to be to reduce the structural integrity of the steel. One must also take into account that the initial impact may have removed a good bit of the fireproofing around the structure.

That said, I was in the WTC, and actually ate i the restaraunt on the top floor. I was simply amazed at the HUGE columns that ran up the middle of the building. I still cannot understand how these columns were "vaporized".

I can see the outer structure losing its integrity and collapsing, but i wold have expected the central columns to still be standing.


Basically, when the collapse started, I would have expected to see the outer walls fall, and the middle culumns continue to stand. Sure they may have collapsed with the rest of the building, but I would have expected to see those central columns exposed for at least a few seconds atop the rest of the collapse, and have been visible after the collapse. After the collapse it appeared these central columns had desintegrated,yet there was plenty of the exterior structure visible.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowXIX
 


I like how you think its all funny I'm a firefighter and I can tell you if a call came in from the 80th floor I was not that hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
ok.. yeah i've read the towers were meant to withstand a plane impact.

Now I have serious questions:

If A plane hit a skyscraper, when would it explode ? would it crumple and destroy the plane itself and the building immediately, or would it just push through like butter ? Watch the actual TV broadcast videos of the attack to see what I mean. To me it looks like some thing is wrong with what the videos show,

Did a janitor in WTC 1 or 2, not sure, not witness a explosion underground in the WTC at around the same time as the attack, and witness and rescue injured persons as a result of an underground explosion ?

Did someone not get trapped in the WTC7 who heard explosions and was rescued by a firefighter who took him out through the lobby and was told "not to look down" as he was walking over people, and the lobby being in a state of unusual destruction ?

Theres also some of these points and others made in the films "Truth Rising" and others by A. Jones.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by ats__fan039]

[edit on 2-10-2008 by ats__fan039]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ats__fan039
 


I wouldn't go as far as to say there were no planes, but I agree something is very wrong with the way the 757's enter the building.

Carbon fiber nose-cone and thin aircraft aluminium against construction steel, and it didn't even make the plane flinch?

And people think that is normal?

I think Newton would have found it odd also...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Carbon fiber nose-cone and thin aircraft aluminium against construction steel, and it didn't even make the plane flinch?


Oh no, not this spin again.

The plane "flinched" alright, it was blown to smithereens.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Please excuse this post if this has already been answered with evidence to back it up.

Could somebody PLEASE explain to me how this occurred? It seems more than a tad coincidental that a core column could be cut in the exact same way a demolition team would sever a core column. Anybody who attempts to claim this happened naturally as a part of the collapse, please back up your claim with evidence that columns such as these sheer off NATURALLY at a 45 degree angle (including molten metal around the cut).



Also, if you have time, could you also please explain to me why so much of the footage has been confiscated and never released? Could you explain, out of the numerous camera's situated around the Pentagon, why only 5 frames from one camera were released?

If the US government wanted to settle this debate once and for all they would release the bloody footage, plain and simple. It is not like the footage has images of naked women in it that would offend young kiddies. Come on, prove the point. Release the footage.

But they never will.....and I see more than a little guilt associated with that.

[edit on 2/10/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


You need to watch the video very carefully. The 757 doesn't explode until it's slid into the building like a knife into butter. No slowing down on impact, no debris flying off as it hits...Nothing until we see the plane no more. So if the outer steel columns didn't have an effect on the plane what was inside the building that it hit to cause it to explode? Furniture?

Remember it's the de-bunkers always going on how the buidlings were 90% air...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

You need to watch the video very carefully. The 757 doesn't explode until it's slid into the building like a knife into butter. No slowing down on impact, no debris flying off as it hits...Nothing until we see the plane no more. So if the outer steel columns didn't have an effect on the plane what was inside the building that it hit to cause it to explode? Furniture?


The steel columns DID have an effect on the plane, to say otherwise is just plain silly. The plane was ripped apart and exploded.

If you don't believe the plane could even enter the building, then please tell us what caused the hole???



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

You need to watch the video very carefully. The 757 doesn't explode until it's slid into the building like a knife into butter.



What else is it gonna do?

It wouldn't explode when the nose makes contact - no fuel there TO explode. The fuel is in the tanks.

It would only explode AFTER the fuel tanks get shredded. And at 500 mph (733 feet/second) it travels the length from the wings to the tail in about 1/10 of a second.

Then given the fact that the fuel explosion isn't an explosion, but a deflagration - which by definition is "slower" than a true explosion..... the explosion would have happened just INSIDE the building, and blown back out.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Is nobody keen enough to answer the question I posed above???


Shame, and here I thought I opened the door for a flood of skeptics to burn me down. Could it be that there is an element of truth in my question?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Is nobody keen enough to answer the question I posed above???


Shame, and here I thought I opened the door for a flood of skeptics to burn me down. Could it be that there is an element of truth in my question?



Instead of getting snippy you could do a little searching, yes this has been answered over and over again. The column has been cut with a torch, there are other pictures out there of these columns being cut at angles with torches.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


FYI I did search and could find no conclusive evidence of this. If you could point me to the thread discussing this I would greatly appreciate it.

I was not getting snippy by the way, I just do not like being ignored when I ask a pertinent question
It reaks of the stench of lies.

Oh and what about the second part of my question? Any epiphanies on that from your end??

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

FYI I did search and could find no conclusive evidence of this.



What WOULD you find conclusive?

If photos and videos of guys doing exactly that isn't conclusive, what would be? Be specific. Avoid "outs" in your response, if possible.

Also, have you used this same criteria for examining alternate claims of cutter charges and/or thermite? What was conclusive for this?




top topics



 
3
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join