It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# WTC Controlled Demo Flash Animation

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:10 AM
Im perty sure we just need an engienering major/ physics major to come here and just do a few cacluations with:

Law of Converstation Mass

Law of Conservation momentum

and Law of Conservation Energy

And maybe eve using the laws of theromodynmanics and some basic newtonain physics.

And we could all see where the numbers add up.
How much force did the towers fall with? how much force did the planes hit with. How much Potentail energy did the towers have? How much energy was released?

Im sure its been done it was proablly first done right after the collapse.

Think about your high school physics class do you rememember how much stuff was just illogical? just how you were like That doesnt make sense. Like if you drop a bullet from the same height that another bullet is fired from a level gun they will both hit the ground at the same time. It is illogical but you can do the calculations to prove it.

I am saying the only real way to prove this is through math. If there is a major lack of energy then you hae to assume there was an ourside force.

You cannont reason this because so much physics goes beyond regular reason.

- mizar (This is my first post regarding 9/11 consparicies)

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:32 PM
Welcome to the debate Mizar.

I agree that objective evidence would be the only way to prove a demolition scenario.

Hoffman's paper makes a good attempt, but it seems to me he might have calculated just a little too high.

500 tons of PETN is a huge amount of extra energy.

So some good calculations on why extra energy was needed would be great.

Or even better some proof that both towers were lined with explosives. Maybe someday one of the thousands of witnesses will come forward.

[edit on 15-1-2006 by LeftBehind]

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So we shouldn't question how the bombs got there?

What makes it a stupid question, because you deem it irrelevant?

It's already been questioned, but it's a stupid question because WE DON'T KNOW. There's nothing showing objectively that bombs were placed, and nothing showing that they weren't. There were opportunities, especially in the cable and/or fireproofing upgrades, and not to mention that they have technology at their disposal that isn't necessarily publically acknowledged! This is U.S. military complex Leftbehind, not the freaking demo company down the street.

Just stop posting the same answer and actually adress the issue of how bombs were placed in the building.

I don't freaking know! How in the hell do you think I would know?

Oh, wait - I see an immature response coming on... something to the ends of... "oh but I thought you were supposed to know everything." . . .

It's also a disinfo tactic:

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely…

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation.

It is, IMHO the biggest flaw with any demlition theory, but go ahead continue with the double standard of evidence, I won't lose any sleep over it.

It isn't evidence. It's so freaking sad that the biggest problem you can find with the demolition theory isn't an objective problem but just what you personally feel.

When you can show that there were absolutely no opportunities for unconventional explosives to be placed, I'll accept this as a "flaw."

So you'll have to prove the following:

1. The existence of all of the weapons our military has at their disposal, both publically acknowledged and not.
2. That of all the time the towers have been up since the early 1970s, there have been absolutely no possibilities for any factions or other groups to place any of those explosives into the buildings.

Then it'll be a "flaw."

As of right now, it's beyond laughable into the realm of completely stupid. No one is arguing demolition on the basis of "there were plenty of opportunities!" The arguments are those based mostly upon the physics of the collapses. But you focus on something totally unsupported - that's unsupported for either side.

This is the grounds you continually run to rather than face any objective issues. It's shameful and it's getting on my nerves, and a total disinfo tactic.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I agree that objective evidence would be the only way to prove a demolition scenario.

The same goes for NIST and everything else officially-backed.

Originally posted by
Im sure its been done it was proablly first done right after the collapse.

Actually, no, it hasn't, or at least it hasn't been publically released. The information we need is under lock and key and has been since "right after the collapse."

Think about your high school physics class do you rememember how much stuff was just illogical? just how you were like That doesnt make sense. Like if you drop a bullet from the same height that another bullet is fired from a level gun they will both hit the ground at the same time. It is illogical but you can do the calculations to prove it.

The reason a bullet fired perpendicularly to the ground hits the ground at the same time a bullet dropped from the same height does (in a vacuum I'm assuming) is because the force ejecting the bullet is lateral and not towards the ground, and thus gravity isn't resisted or aided anymore than it is with the bullet that's simply dropped.

The above explanation did not require me to do any mathematics work. In fact, the problem didn't seem "illogical" to me at all. It makes perfect sense.

But do some for me and see what you come up with.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:16 PM
If you watch the North Tower collapsing (from different video sources) in some of the videos you can see demolition squibs. I mean as soon as it starts collapsing.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:36 PM
were shredded into tiny segments??? tiny...What are you kidding me? Lets talk to the guys that had to clean up...I was there...there were no "tiny" segments of steel...the steel was a massive pile of twisted metal...an endless sea of it...tiny is an absolute rediculous term that cant begin to describe it. There wasnt any small peices of metal...there were small "other things" but not, steel.....huge HUGE peices of steel...sorry no "tiny" steel anything.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:41 PM
Put things into perspective. A 12-foot piece of steel is relatively small when speaking of these buildings. Not to mention that a clean cut on steel is most certainly indicative of a high-velocity impact or etc. upon the steel, and not the result of twisting and bending from weight. You can find examples of both in the WTC rubble, with the clean cuts being especially stereotypical of pieces that can be seen ejecting away from the buildings as they fall.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Put things into perspective. A 12-foot piece of steel is relatively small when speaking of these buildings. Not to mention that a clean cut on steel is most certainly indicative of a high-velocity impact or etc. upon the steel, and not the result of twisting and bending from weight. You can find examples of both in the WTC rubble, with the clean cuts being especially stereotypical of pieces that can be seen ejecting away from the buildings as they fall.

I personally brought and handed torches to the steel workers with a fire dept from westchester NY...sorry tiny...is a BAD choice of words...I personally saw no cleancuts.....I was there and I prefer not to watch video or see photos, so you know better than I as far as interpereting "data"...I saw massive pieces of steel that were cut into smaller and smaller pieces by men...I was there the first day and the last day . I personally saw not one 12 foot peice of steel...As far as "ejections"...I saw ejections and they werent beams, metal or concrete. I hope one day the truth of this horrific tragedy will be determined...The way those building came down, I must admit, was strangley strategic...but the element of intense focused, and continued burn of fuel is not a factor in the other noted structure fires...Please don't pick this post apart...I saw what I saw...for moments, days weeks and months...and the word "tiny" even if relative, is an extremely bad choice of word

new topics

top topics

0