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.
Originally posted by Griff
You forgot to quote the part in my statement where I explain this. Yes, a controlled demolition is used with many explosives when you don't want debris flying into the neighbor buildings. If you want it to look more natural, you would only need to sever the columns in a few places and let gravity do it's job with no regaurd of the neighboring buildings.
Maybe I can put it differently. I'm talking about people believing that a few floors can bring the towers down but won't believe that a few floors plus a few explosives can.
Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, when they are exposed to sufficient heat to ignite they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction.
This way you wouldn't need to hide that many explosives in the building.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
bs here claims that the bombs were planted and they were somehow unnoticed. He still hasn't explained how though. He's also suggesting that the bombs were placed on every floor.
Who the 'f' cares how they went off. It's WHAT went off that we're talking about.
You didn't just suggest it was a combo; you just suggested it was the planes.
Where?
wtf is the difference between a demo (explosive) and a plane (used as an explosive)?
No building has ever had a plane that large slammed into it on purpose either.
Originally posted by bsbray11
All that needs to be proven is that the towers couldn't have fallen naturally.
Really? Can you back this up, that you were talking about this? I've asked you to back up at least three or four things you've suggested and you've failed to back up any of them.
You didn't just suggest it was a combo; you just suggested it was the planes.
Where?
wtf is the difference between a demo (explosive) and a plane (used as an explosive)?
Going to correct yourself now? I suspect you'll just talk in more circles instead.
Which accounted for only 15% of the damage to the structure, leaving the other
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
What are you waiting for?
Really? Can you back this up, that you were talking about this? I've asked you to back up at least three or four things you've suggested and you've failed to back up any of them.
Such as what?
It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.
Where did I suggest that? Have a link?
So...are you saying a psychic did in fact place the explosives there or were the explosives placed after the planes crashed?
And where did I suggest this?
Ha! A joke...
...funny...
Throughout this thread and others I have said it was a combo, not once did I ever say the planes alone brought down the building.
Which accounted for only 15% of the damage to the structure, leaving the other
Originally posted by bsbray11
Not for you. If you want to shut me up, you can prove that the towers could have fallen naturally. Don't just give me theories. Give me proof of natural collapse.
For two others:
It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.
Where did I suggest that? Have a link?
And where did I suggest this?
I just showed you where you suggested the planes brought the towers down, just as you asked!, and you respond with this immature crap.
Then you should learn the difference here between the plane impacts and subsequent fires. They are two different events, and you were just suggesting the impacts did the job of the fires.
I haven't answered because the premise doesn't make sense: the plane impacts did not cause significant damage!
But the plane impacts caused a minor amount of damage in comparison to what needed to be done to initiate a collapse.
I'm asking for any skyscraper fire that's caused 60% damage, period.
I'm trying to point out that no skyscraper has ever had that kind of damage done to it by fire alone, period! Do you get the point now? I want you prove that the fires did that kind of damage to the towers, when they have never been able to before.
Have you ever seen buildings demoed like that?
Yes. But you won't until you're reasonable and stop calling foul on which directions the buildings fall in, because they can be set up to fall in any direction pleased. That's what I was trying to say, but that you apparently didn't get.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I have posted at least 3 different videos of the collapse in this thread.
1. Flying planes into buildings (and whatever the results) is hardly "natural"
2. Are you suggesting the collapses were not natural? Well, what proof do you have they weren't natural.
For two others:
It prevents the explosives from having the desired affect of having everythign collapse in, especially if it's just on one floor as your suggesting.
Where did I suggest that? Have a link?
Well you haven't suggested otherwise.
Originally posted by ANOK
The one point I keep making and you keep skipping around is this...
How do roughly 15 floors have enough weight and momentum to completely collapse and turn into dust, at near free-fall, 90+ floors that are undamaged by fire or impact? That's all I ask, no BS, no skipping around and deflecting, no emoticoms, no sarcasm, just your analysis of how that is physically possible under any circumstances. I and thousands of others would love to see it.
Also pls re-examine the pic you posted above. If the explosion happened inside the building then what are those two huge fireballs OUTside the building?
It's not the building blowing out, the damage is not consistant with that.
So what does that logicaly leave? Jet Fuel. The majority of the jet fuel exploding and burning off. So it doesn't leave much fuel left to ignite the non-existant raging fires inside huh?
Originally posted by STolarZ
I can agree with you Howard that WTC 1 and 2 couldn't fall like a tree. They where hit too high.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Steel framed structures, however, are too flexible, and gravity is too powerful a force once the frame is a few degrees out of plumb. It is unrealistic to expect that the WTC towers or WTC 7 would have tipped like trees.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Uh, TJW...
This thread is about BUILDING 7! Why do you keep bringing up planes? Oh, I get it, you must be a mutant with invisi-vision like Larry Silverstein, so you saw the invisible planes that all us ordinary humans missed...
But, don't let that stop you from talking about planes hitting buildings here; it really helps your argument.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by truthseeka
Uh, TJW...
This thread is about BUILDING 7! Why do you keep bringing up planes? Oh, I get it, you must be a mutant with invisi-vision like Larry Silverstein, so you saw the invisible planes that all us ordinary humans missed...
But, don't let that stop you from talking about planes hitting buildings here; it really helps your argument.
wtf are you talking about? I was responding to a person talking about the Twin Towers.
Thanks for minding your own business though
I'm not to trying to be rude, but I've read the NIST and FEMA reports and they are nothing but conjecture.
I'll ask again...are you legally blind?
1. How do you know it didn't cause significant damage?
2. Define significant?
external image
look at the videos again, the explosion happens IN the building (with both planes)
(NIST, 2005, p. 144)
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure.
(NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes