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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The NIST reports were read and reviewed by various experts in the applicable fields, unlike the Professor Jones paper.


One of the articles I have looked over said the paper is up for peer review, so we'll see if anyone else begins to agree with him or not.

As for more sources on my info, the image is there itself. If the fires started on floors above and below the impact zone than the steel would still have been protected and the fires would have needed to be a lot hotter than the 400degrees people say it does.




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Actually the fires started in the opposite side from the initial impact as that is where the fuel wound up.

The area by the impact hole was where the fresh air was being drawn into the building. Fires later developed on this face on the floors above and below the main impact. (that particular floor was wiped out by the impact, as you can see by the photograph.)


Thanks for summarizing that for me.


It was taking too long to load over here.


Originally posted by XL5
If you think about things differently, how could you have used explosives to strighten the descent of the top after it started to tilt?


Destroy the frames of the caps, or the fulcrums of the outward movements. This would've taken care of the momentum of the caps.


How could you use 1-5 explosive charges on only the floors with evidence of squibs, to get the building to collapse the exact way it did?


Those were the squibs that went off at the wrong times and stuck out. They shouldn't have been visible at all. All of the other charges went off in time with each other, making the building appear as though it was collapsing downward at an incredible rate of speed, and incredibly symmetrically. Rather, these explosives were just ripping down the building. You can see the puffs coming out in rows, floor by floor, in this video.


Is there a difference between squibs from explosives blowing out window,


The squibs would've had to have been explosives.


or pockets of fuel fumes


Three problems: (A) it wasn't present on many, if not all of the floors that exhibited squibs, (B) the explosion wouldn't be powerful enough to pulverize various materials and eject them over 100 feet into the air as the squibs actually ocurred, and (C) if these fumes were that powerful, the initial fireballs would have nearly cut the buildings in half. Also, no flames were visible from any of the squibs.


or other combustables?


Such as? Paper and plastics? What?


Could the steel supports heat up if they are compressed?


I would imagine so, but it would have to be a great amount of heat from a great amount of weight to cause the buildings to collapse, if that's where you're going. And I mean great in terms of WTC great, which is a lot.


If they wanted to take the building down, why did they wait so long


To make it seem more authentic, as they were going to blame fires apparently. For the buildings to immediately fall as they did right after impact would've seemed way too wrong, as buildings don't react like that at all to such damage. Engineers would be all over that without a better excuse.


or why didn't they wait longer untill every one was out?


My guess is because it turned out that the fires weren't doing so well. This may have been the reason the South Tower came down first; its fires espescially weren't doing so great before it collapsed. I don't think saving human life was much of a concern to these people, just as others would believe it wasn't of much concern to the terrorists.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
NIST's WTC7 Damage Assessment

I found NIST's complete estimates of the damage to WTC7.
wtc.nist.gov...


After WTC 1 collapsed:
* Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
* No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
* SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
* South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
* South Face Damage:
- middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
- large debris hole near center around 14th floor
- 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
- 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby.


Here is NIST's graphical representation of their estimates (blue text added by me):



There is no explanation on how this damage estimate was arrived at so we must assume, as with the WTC1&2 reports, that the estimate was made from photographic evidence and witness reports. The only photographs presented in the report are ones that we have already seen. Here is the only relevant one that we have not:



Notice that the damage to the parapet wall is minor to say the least. This does not seem to match with NIST's description:

South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known.


Regarding the estimate of damage to the south face, "middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground", there is no photographic evidence presented whatsoever to support this. Unless they are holding photographs up their sleeve, we can only assume they guesstimated from witness reports. But did they use Chris Boyle's testimony as their guide?


www.firehouse.com...
Boyle: So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.


If so, then why doesn't his "20-storey hole" testimony match with their appraisal?

I've superimposed NIST's damage estimate over the floorplan of the building:



As you can see, NIST is claiming the falling debris took out half the building, including 10 columns and 3 elevator banks.

Knowing how buildings redistribute load (see my 2nd post here, and/or do some research of your own) and looking at the other decimated buildings both in the WTC complex and through history, this damage would not be enough to cause a failure in the building leading to collapse, and most certainly could not possibly lead to perfect, symmetrical, near free-fall speed collapse as we saw. But furthermore, this damage estimate seems more than a little excessive, for a number of reasons:

1. Looking at the satellite photograph below, we can see that both the Verizon and Post Office building sustained minor damage. In fact, none is discernible from this photograph. The heavy debris that fell from the top of WTC1 fell on WTC6 creating that large hole in the building, not on WTC7. But the area on WTC6 closest to WTC7 is still intact, with lighter debris perched on top of it.




We can surmise that any debris reaching far enough to striking WTC7 was unlikely to be heavy and large enough to carve out half the building as NIST claims.


2. Due to the height of the trajectory of any debris falling from WTC1, the angle of any debris striking the bottom 10 floors (as NIST states) of WTC7 would have been close to 90deg. Below is a roughly to-scale representation of the site. The view is looking from the West to the East. (Please excuse the crappy graphics.)



Considering the angle at which any debris hitting the bottom ten floors of WTC7 would have struck the building, and considering how relatively light it would have to be in order to travel that far, the inference that such debris would be capable of carving out half the building is ridiculous. It would either bounce off or slide down the facade creating minor damage, or would have become lodged in the building. The only damage to the building supported by photographic evidence (the SW corner) indeed shows minor damage.


3. The Verizon, the Post Office building, and other buildings in the complex of similar distance from the towers as WTC7 were also struck by debris. The damage sustained by these buildings was also relatively minor, and nothing even approaching the level of damage NIST claims for WTC7:



Do you see half of these buildings carved out? Do they look like they are about to collapse in a symmetrical, free-fall implosion perfectly mimicking controlled demolition?




IMHO, unless NIST or anyone else can produce some solid photographic evidence of extensive, "half the building carved away" damage to WTC7, their claims should be approached with extreme skepticism.





[edit on 2005-11-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Text I'm a former NYer who was always a "Twin Towers" fan, growing up with them in sight from my bedroom after they reached about 50 floors.

I wonder why no one has tied in the fact that just a few years ago, massive night-time renovations of the Towers were completed to reinforce sub-standard fire-proofing. We've already seen how patient Al Quieda can be. Small explosives could have been placed there several years ago to lie dormant until needed.

As far as expertise, it would not have been difficult for a massively funded organization like Al Quieda to pay explosive experts to train their people. It's not as technical as flying airplanes, and well, look at what happened there.

Similarly, I find it curious that the Pentagon was hit precisely where it had just been concrete reinforced- in fact it was the only wedge that had been worked on. Makes a great test case to check out its vulnerability to attack.

We have already seen the U.S. government's willingness to work illegally in the past (?) selling arms to Ayatollah Khomeni's regime (Iran-Contra), and illegally arms Contras in Nicaragua, and prop up regimes througout the world that don't necessarily end up doing the U.S.'s bidding.

Remember, Geroge Bush senior was head of the CIA, and Reagan's VIce-President during the period of many of these illegal actions. Americans already know that the power in the White House is not George Bush's, but rather the same war-hawks who wree in the Reagan/Bush administrations.

I don't think for a moment that they wouldn't accept knowledge of the loss of a potential 10,000 lives at the WTC as collateral damage in their ideologcial passion to start a war to cement U.S. world superiority.

Call it military/industrial, NWO, CFR, illuminati- whatever. These people are so interwoven with wealthy corporations and individuals, that all morality goes up in smoke and fire.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
One other thing. Let's remember that the U.S. generously funded the mudjahadeem in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation. Guess who "turned" into the Taliban once Afghanistan was "liberated" from the USSR???


XL5

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Combustables, like bug spary or other aerosol products, even buckling concrete exploding because the metal being bent underneath it. Or just rushing air over already stressed windows that has been directed by open and shut doors. If the powers that be set up the explosives, none would misfire.

As for the tilt being corrected, as the top is crushing the lower floors diagonally. There is a time, where for example, where the north side of floor 76 is "in" 75 the same time but not touching 75's floor (no support).
Then the south side of 76's floor (75's ceiling) has twice the weight it was designed for on it and it gives in BEFORE the north side of floor 76 can touch 75's floor.

It doesn't happen that fast, but it happens just like that, little by little for each floor that is crushed. That kind of thing would be hard to control for a human pushing buttons or turning keys, they would need a computer that had a camera feed to know which explosives is where and when it should go off. Otherwise it would be like trying to correct a motorbike that starts wobbling at high speeds.

Why wouldn't they wait days and make sure every one was out of the area before they told people they would be bringing it down? They would have every one out of the area so they don't need to send in a mock demolition team and the terrorists still win.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
What I haven't seen on this issue is any quote of the statement made by the person who designed the asbestos insulation, and the process for it's application on the main girders and collumns of the WTC.

A bit over half way through the building of the WTC structures, the environmental nutballs made a big stink about the asbestos (which does absolutely no harm if not loose in the air). This individual stated at the time that :... "if there's ever a fire at this level or above, this building will collapse".

Also I'd like to bring up the fact that not one of the survivors mentioned anything about hearing explosions or "rumbles" previous to the planes hitting the building(s), as was the case in the Oklahoma City bombing. I would imagine that there are or were discussions on the OK City issue, so I hesitate to mention it in this forum. However, being ex-demo, there's no way the bomb in the van could have done the damage which resulted; plus the evidence of shape-charges on the main collumns and over 40 people feeling a rumble in the building 20 seconds before McVeighs bomb went off, and had time to get under their desks/tables, thinking it was an earthquake. (Also, "John Doe" number two had contact with one of Saddams military officials just months before.... but that's another issue, too).

The amount of H.E required to damage the collumns to the extent required to weaken the superstructure enough to bring down the WTC buildings would definately been felt at least four floors above and below their placement, and set off earthquake/vibration alarms in the building(s).

The descriptions and pictures which show damage to the outer shell and parapet of the building(s) would occur from a shock wave travelling through the outside of a building from such a collision of plane-structure.

There has been a lot of time and effort into investigating the WTC collapse, much of it laboriously presented here. I merely wish to add to it things which which would be obvious if they occured.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
But what's truly amazing is these researchers, armed with 3 solid years, 20 million smackeroonies, the WTC blueprints they refuse to release for public scrutiny, and 12000+ images & pieces of footage they also refuse to release...still neglected to explain the collapse mode of the towers.

As for WTC7, they hardly touched it, and again, no collapse mode was presented. Still waiting on the final report for that one. "Soon", they say.

If I was an American taxpayer, I'd be asking for my $20,000,000 back.

And if you believe FEMA's fairytale that WTC7 collapsed from fire, then my advice would be next time you're in a steel-frame building that has a couple of small fires in it, run your booty off, because that puppy's gonna come tumbling down faster than Jack and Jill.



[edit on 2005-11-14 by wecomeinpeace]


You're forgetting a shockwave from a 220,000 Lb aircraft hitting the superstructure of the buildings......



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ptownrob
Text I'm a former NYer who was always a "Twin Towers" fan, growing up with them in sight from my bedroom after they reached about 50 floors.

I wonder why no one has tied in the fact that just a few years ago, massive night-time renovations of the Towers were completed to reinforce sub-standard fire-proofing. We've already seen how patient Al Quieda can be. Small explosives could have been placed there several years ago to lie dormant until needed.

As far as expertise, it would not have been difficult for a massively funded organization like Al Quieda to pay explosive experts to train their people. It's not as technical as flying airplanes, and well, look at what happened there.

Similarly, I find it curious that the Pentagon was hit precisely where it had just been concrete reinforced- in fact it was the only wedge that had been worked on. Makes a great test case to check out its vulnerability to attack.

We have already seen the U.S. government's willingness to work illegally in the past (?) selling arms to Ayatollah Khomeni's regime (Iran-Contra), and illegally arms Contras in Nicaragua, and prop up regimes througout the world that don't necessarily end up doing the U.S.'s bidding.

Remember, Geroge Bush senior was head of the CIA, and Reagan's VIce-President during the period of many of these illegal actions. Americans already know that the power in the White House is not George Bush's, but rather the same war-hawks who wree in the Reagan/Bush administrations.

I don't think for a moment that they wouldn't accept knowledge of the loss of a potential 10,000 lives at the WTC as collateral damage in their ideologcial passion to start a war to cement U.S. world superiority.

Call it military/industrial, NWO, CFR, illuminati- whatever. These people are so interwoven with wealthy corporations and individuals, that all morality goes up in smoke and fire.


Check your history.... arming the Contras was a good thing considering who they were fighting.....



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
And if you believe FEMA's fairytale that WTC7 collapsed from fire, then my advice would be next time you're in a steel-frame building that has a couple of small fires in it, run your booty off, because that puppy's gonna come tumbling down faster than Jack and Jill.




Originally posted by zappafan1
You're forgetting a shockwave from a 220,000 Lb aircraft hitting the superstructure of the buildings......


WTC7 was not hit by any aircraft.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
Combustables, like bug spary or other aerosol products, even buckling concrete exploding because the metal being bent underneath it. Or just rushing air over already stressed windows that has been directed by open and shut doors.


I hope you realize how ridiculous it is to claim any of those things, especially air or bug spray, or ... hell, especially any of them, did this:



That is a massive, flameless, concrete-and-etc. dust-ejecting explosion.


If the powers that be set up the explosives, none would misfire.


I suppose if the powers that be set up 9/11, neither would Rumsfeld slip up and say Flight 93 was shot down, or Bush slip up and say he saw the first plane hit on TV on two different occasions, or Larry Silverstein saying he gave a command to "pull-it," etc. These guys have a lot of resources at their disposal but they aren't infallible, and thus this whole conspiracy may be brought out and something may be done, if individuals will think.


As for the tilt being corrected, as the top is crushing the lower floors diagonally. There is a time, where for example, where the north side of floor 76 is "in" 75 the same time but not touching 75's floor (no support).
Then the south side of 76's floor (75's ceiling) has twice the weight it was designed for on it and it gives in BEFORE the north side of floor 76 can touch 75's floor.


What you fail to realize is that as long as there is contact, there is a pivot for the momentum, and while there is no contact, there is similarly no weight to push down the floors for the buildings to collapse on themselves. You can't have it both ways, both non-contacting and bearing down weight, as that doesn't make sense. As soon as contact would resume, the momentum would continue. It never continued. As long as there was no weight bearing down, the collapse would not have continued. The collapse did continue. Therefore the angular momentum problem itself does not make sense unless you assume that the fulcrum was destroyed by something besides the weight of the caps, and the primary, and only candidate for that is explosives.


It doesn't happen that fast, but it happens just like that, little by little for each floor that is crushed. That kind of thing would be hard to control for a human pushing buttons or turning keys, they would need a computer that had a camera feed to know which explosives is where and when it should go off. Otherwise it would be like trying to correct a motorbike that starts wobbling at high speeds.


You wouldn't have to push a button for every single charge, let alone see what you're doing. We're way beyond that in technology, and have been for years. Think of pyrotechnics, for example. Ever seen a pyrotechnics show where flames are lighted at different times? Maybe you've seen the movie Phantom of the Opera. In the opening, there is a pyrotechnics scene where flames are ignited in a row, one-by-one, at a rapid rate. That is the exact same technology that demolition companies have when charges in different parts of buildings go off at different times, to take out certain columns before taking out others. It's all in the way things are wired up and programmed, and it's entirely possible and very easy and seemless.


Why wouldn't they wait days and make sure every one was out of the area before they told people they would be bringing it down?


These people don't give a damn about you. Look at how many of our soldiers, as well as civilians, are dying in Iraq every day because of an "intelligence error," and yet Bush is all smiles and no regrets. And Bush isn't even the worst of them.


Also I'd like to bring up the fact that not one of the survivors mentioned anything about hearing explosions or "rumbles" previous to the planes hitting the building(s), as was the case in the Oklahoma City bombing.


Actually, people did. There was a janitor that reported a huge, steel-melting explosion in the basements before the planes struck (others can probably pull up a link to this guy pretty quickly), and there were people from nearby buildings that heard things before the impacts, etc.


The amount of H.E required to damage the collumns to the extent required to weaken the superstructure enough to bring down the WTC buildings would definately been felt at least four floors above and below their placement, and set off earthquake/vibration alarms in the building(s).


And yet a little damage and fire isolated to a few floors will do the exact same job?

Btw a lot of thermite could've eaten through structurally critical portions of the basement with no such vibrations.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by bsbray11]


XL5

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If it was the janitors room it could have enough power to do that, even explosions from upper floors.

As for the point of contact being a fulcrum, it would be like a see-saw with tooth picks as the fulcrum support and a box under the rasied side. The floors are chrushing and there is alot of friction between the upper part and lower part so the top can not just slide off. As the top part is tilting on the edge of a floor, 20-30% of the weight supporting beams are taking 70-80% more weight then they were ever designed for and they crush!

If 20-30% of the beams on one floor could support the total weight of the top of the building, then it would need explosives to bring it down. In computerized demolitions, the charges can all be timed. In this case, "they" could not have pre timed the charges, because they could not have knowen the extent, angle and location of the place crash and therefore the way the top will tip. They would need a camera or two hooked up to a computer to see the tilt and correct it.

But what would have pushed the top over like that? It would have to be falling to the weakest side, if not, why did they make bombs go off on one side if thats not what they wanted to do.

As for thier evilness, I don't know.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Btw a lot of thermite could've eaten through structurally critical portions of the basement with no such vibrations.


If the bottom was taken out in the manner that you suggest, then the whole building would have dropped from the bottom up. It didn't.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
If it was the janitors room it could have enough power to do that, even explosions from upper floors.


I don't even know what you're trying to say here, but if it's what I think you're saying, then I don't see how you could possibly know that unless you were there and saw exactly what did or did not cause explosions.


As for the point of contact being a fulcrum, it would be like a see-saw with tooth picks as the fulcrum support and a box under the rasied side. The floors are chrushing and there is alot of friction between the upper part and lower part so the top can not just slide off.


What in the world? How does the amount of friction dictate where the caps could or could not go?


As the top part is tilting on the edge of a floor, 20-30% of the weight supporting beams are taking 70-80% more weight then they were ever designed for and they crush!


So? They would be crushed and the caps would continue on their way tilting over. They wouldn't simply fall straight down. If you don't agree with me on that, post some reference to the scientific law you're referencing. You know, the scientific law that states matter can only be bent downward at a 90 degree angle. I'd love to see that.

And I say bent because, by the way, steel is extremely hard to break, as in snap, but is malleable at high temperatures, and therefore there should've been no clean-cut steel from such an instance, but steel bent and twisted, heating up from friction in the process (which again would have absolutely no bearing on which way the steel would move).

Maybe if you didn't start with a conclusion and then just try to make up stuff to make your conclusion work, these suggestions would make a little more sense.


If 20-30% of the beams on one floor could support the total weight of the top of the building, then it would need explosives to bring it down. In computerized demolitions, the charges can all be timed. In this case, "they" could not have pre timed the charges, because they could not have knowen the extent, angle and location of the place crash and therefore the way the top will tip. They would need a camera or two hooked up to a computer to see the tilt and correct it.


They would not need to see the tilt to correct it, or anything else of what you suggested. Consider this: the planes are driven into the general area where the charges are set to go off. Then, any failure in that region, because of the fires, can easily be chalked up to steel weakened by heat, and it's no big deal. Everyone believes it. And I just thought of that off the top of my head in no time; it's not that big of a problem to overcome. And as long as the fulcrum is blown out, neither is the angular momentum a problem, either.


But what would have pushed the top over like that?


Uh, gravity?


Nothing was "pushed," it was pulled, towards the ground, via the passage of least resistance to gravity: where the planes had made holes and taken out support columns.

If the buildings would have collapsed at all by their own accord, it would've probably been in those directions, but definitely not straight down. That was a dead giveaway that something was up.

And if, by that last statement, you are suggesting that the caps didn't lean, then you've must've never seen the collapse of the South Tower, because that baby had an especially conspicuous tilt, and that's no invention of ours.


It would have to be falling to the weakest side, if not, why did they make bombs go off on one side if thats not what they wanted to do.


Who said the charges were only placed on one side of the buildings? They fell symmetrically, meaning the columns across the floors were all blown out at about the same time, in some insanely fast time frame, especially considering steel only bends and does not shatter.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
If the bottom was taken out in the manner that you suggest, then the whole building would have dropped from the bottom up. It didn't.


How would you know?


Cough up the blueprints, Howie, and tell us how much thermite they used exactly, and where exactly they placed it.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by bsbray11]


XL5

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
When I say friction, I mean that is why the top didn't just slide (not topple) off the bottom part. Metal with 75% more weight then the maximum load weight will give out by bending, snaping or tearing, just like stomping on a pop can. Once the first supports are weakend and give out, the speed of the hugh mass will create even more force on the next set of supports.

If the any supports are way beyond thier max load they will give way even before the downward edge of the top of the building hits the next floor. When the upper most floors of the bottom (fulcrum) break, they absorb the energy of the top before its downward edge can exert any more energy into the already broken supports. Its harder to compessed steel thats already compressed then it is to compress very stressed steel.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I'm not going to read through so many pages of old news. But what I will comment on is the melted steel. Some people hear melted steel and they think of that big vat of molten metal. To me melted steel is also soft steel. One of the programs I saw on TV had footage I had never seen before. It was a shot deep into the hole in the side of one of the towers where the flames were burning. You could see what looked like redish/orange. This metal was obviously super heated. Once it gets to this point it is soft. Once it becomes soft the building will come down. It only takes one floor to fail for that to happen. The impact of the floors above coming down on a good floor will cause the good floor to collapse. Don't think so? Put your hand on the table. Place a brick on your hand. Does it hurt? No. Now pick that brick up one foot and drop it on your hand. Same feeling as before? LOL. Of course not.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
When I say friction, I mean that is why the top didn't just slide (not topple) off the bottom part. Metal with 75% more weight then the maximum load weight will give out by bending, snaping or tearing, just like stomping on a pop can. Once the first supports are weakend and give out, the speed of the hugh mass will create even more force on the next set of supports.


you should start your own demolition company. these buildings chop themselves down. no need to wire the whole building, you just knock out a 'plunger' at the top, and it crushes the building perfectly for you.

and you ignore any reems of eyewitness testimony that don't jive with that.
and you ignore tower seven's perfect, mysterious, swept under the media rug, collapse.
and you ignore that controlled demolitions was the company hired to clean up.
and you ignore that bush=hitler. (both relatively minor puppets of the illuminati)
and you ignore that if you fold an american twenty into a paper airplane, it shows a perfect illustration of what the towers looked like as they were buring after the collisions.
and you ignore that some highjackers are still alive.
and if you ignore that bush senior, in 1976 as head of the cia, ordered a special military group to draw up the EXACT SCENARIO, ie. muslims with plastic boxcutters highjack commercial jets and fly them into the twin towers, supposedly as the result of a study to test america's vunerability. never thought of it, my arse. THEY thought of it.
and you 'll have to ignore a bunch of other stuff, too.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Put your hand on the table. Place a brick on your hand. Does it hurt? No. Now pick that brick up one foot and drop it on your hand. Same feeling as before? LOL. Of course not.


It doesn't work like that. When an object falls on a simular object, lets say 2 bricks, the lower brick is not gonna give way with no resistance.

In the WTC you had bricks faling on bricks not bricks falling on hands.

If the lower floors were equaly weaker than those above then yes maybe you would get what you're saying. But they're not, so what hapened to the resistance of the lower floors.
Just look at WeComeInPeace's diagram. You think the weight of that small cap was enough to bring down the whole building? Resistance baby! Where's the resistance?


XL5

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Billybob, I am ignoring those things because they are not my main focus. You already have me pegged as a bush supporter, I am not, because I hate stupid control/power laws. I believe in UFO's aliens and free energy but I don't believe bombs were used in the WTC 1-2 that day and I don't have enough info on WTC7 to care.

As for the demolition people called to clean up, they are the only ones who can cut bent steel supports that are tangled and under stress by remote pyrotecnics. Do construction people normally clean up after a demolition team has brought a building down? Some buildings are somewhat un-symmetrical and need explosives to even them out. If you drop a big enough symmetrical weight onto the center of a weakend building, it will not tip (pop can and foot).



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
(pop can and foot).


Again another anology that just doesn't fit. Your foot has power and weight behind it, a pop can is far weaker and so of course your foot will win.

The upper section of the towers above the impact point is not heavier, nor did it have any other downward force other than gravity.
There is no way it could have cause the rest of the building to just disnintagrate underneath it, physicly imposible!
Take a pile of bricks, pull one out somewhere near the top, will the bricks above dropping on those bellow cause them to collapse into dust with no resistance?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join