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.

 

Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by juggernaut
Think about it, an aircraftexplodes within the building, imagine the magnitude of the force exerted by the foundations...
Impact was sideways, so structure was weakened unevenly.
I believe that americans blew up the building themselves, but only to avoid more damage, that the building, as big as WTC, could cause while going down...


[edit on 27-5-2006 by juggernaut]


It'd be impossible to prepare controlled demolition of that scale so quickly. First firemen have reached the lowest impacted floor of WTC2 when the building collapsed.

In fact I was afraid the buildings will collapse from the very first moment I've seen pics of the burning towers in the TV. The damage seemed too large to me.I don't think one needs some conspiracy to collapse such a building within such circumstances.




posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Maybe it seems impossible, but You know, desperate situations require desperate actions...



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by juggernaut

I believe that americans blew up the building themselves, but only to avoid more damage, that the building, as big as WTC, could cause while going down...


If this was true, first off they would have evacuated the buildings before they 'pulled' them, and second they wouldn't have to lie about it...



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There are a good deal of problems with the theory that they were air. Here are a few:


  • The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.


Try to think those over before suggesting they were just air.



The buildings would not have to be air tight. The explosion would have been large enough to cause a great change of air pressure from the outside and inside of the building. Such an explosion would create a temporary but strong vacuum within the immediate vicinity and would almost certainly have a pull effect.

In fact, many building around ground zero had their windows blown outward

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Hajduk]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
for everyone who wonders why they were destroyed by demoliton....google rachsteig (sorry cant spell it)......short version...is hitler burned his own capital building to ralley the people for war against poland.....sound familiar? (history repeats itself ALOT)



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hajduk

The buildings would not have to be air tight. The explosion would have been large enough to cause a great change of air pressure from the outside and inside of the building. Such an explosion would create a temporary but strong vacuum within the immediate vicinity and would almost certainly have a pull effect.

In fact, many building around ground zero had their windows blown outward

[edit on 27-5-2006 by Hajduk]


we saw what looked like that as it collpased, massive suckback for want of a technical word of the smoke back down inside the building



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hajduk
The buildings would not have to be air tight.


They would for air pressure to build up inside them, from (this is the theory you guys are going after, btw, just to clear you up) air from upper floors being forced down into lower foors, so that the lower floors were building up pressure.

The difference between this inside pressure and the outside pressure is the difference you reference below:


The explosion would have been large enough to cause a great change of air pressure from the outside and inside of the building.


But I have no idea how you think this could happen without the buildings being airtight.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo

But why is no one talking about the smoke seen before thew building even fell?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by Tasketo]


just a quick pointer Im not sure if anybody else said this but there was a major fire in the building



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Ok, good find, I'll admit that. But here is the problem. Not just with this conspiracy theory, but with all conspiracy theories. Even if its true, that 9-11 was an orchestrated event conducted by the USG, so what. What could we ever do about it? Nothing. In my opinion, Kennedy was assassinated by the USG over 40 years ago and it looks like they got clean away with that one with no repercussions from us civilians.

And if the USG was involved in 9-11, looks they got clean away with that one also. It's a no win situation for the average citizen. We can postulate, hypothesize, imagine, dream, and even uncover hardcore factual evidence to suggest a conspiracy. But it will either not be believed by the general public, or the USG will discredit all of the evidence or the presenter of the evidence.

We, the people, have formed a government equivelent to Frankenstein's Monster. It's now out of our control and dangerously powerful. We, the people, actually control nothing anymore. Even election results are seriously doubted these days. It's kind of depressing so I try not to even think about it anymore.

Eisenhower warned us in his farewell address, and I quote*



This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.


*coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

[edit on 5/29/2006 by Jeddyhi]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
very good point...what could we really do? you tell us



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
well we could not let it affect our lives and say screw the gov and get educated get great carrears and have a butt load of money and live well.

someone said that the problem is that i using my eyes....u know it was a funny twist a fate that long story short i came accross this movie "911 in plane sight" the night i posted my last comment. i watched the movie and yeah they had some ok points about the pentagon i guess. i dunno its still quite shaky to me. but all the so called "evidence" that i seen in that movie about the wtc was garbage. they excpet me to belive that the plane few into the building with bombs strapped to it and there was some tiny barley noticable flash on this tape that some how prooves that the plane didnt really cause the damage......

does anyone remember that twa crash from years back? well the fuel on that flight was so abundant and the fire got so hot that the jet fuel was burning on the water. now if fire can burn on water...why is it so hard to belive that fire cn melt steel?

the best point i heard so far was that the gov might not have wanted the buildings to fall in a certain way as to cause more damage.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Spawwwn: You said "if fire can burn on water...why is it so hard to belive that fire cn melt steel?"

You must be very young and of limited experience. The reason why fuel can burn "on water" is that jet fuel is lighter than water, it floats to the surface, is exposed to atmospheric oxygen, and thus burns if there's ignition.

"Fire can melt steel" if the "fire" is capable of producing and does produce enough heat. It appears to be well settled that the jet fuel fires in the twin towers were not capable of producing enough heat to melt steel, not to mention the other factors discussed on this lengthy thread which caused the heat that was produced to be dissipated and minimized.

Your example of jet fuel burning while floating on the surface of water doesn't support the assertion that the fire in the towers could have melted or even sufficiently weakened the steel structural members to the point of catastrphic failure.

[edit on 5/30/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
In my opinion, the claims that it is "compressed air" is totally false. For one, everyone knows compressed air isn't going to find ONE or TWO random spots to leak from, especially if the building IS NOT air tight. The air would try to leak from multiple spots simultaneously. Meaning those dust plumes should have shown up all around the building at the same levels. Also.. the original posters picture shows two explosions of the same length on TWO DIFFERENT FLOORS. They are not on the same floor. That would mean the air pressure on both floors would have to be exactly the same, if i was following the "compressed air" theory. But since both clouds of smoke are the exact same length and on different floor levels, the only explanation would be an outside force other than air, maybe planned explosives.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
The compressed air would not neccessarily burst to all sides. It is enough to find the weakest spot.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
yes but there was no real "weaker" point than anywhere in the whole floor...open ur minds people...me and bs have gone on this thread for a while now and it feels like we hittin a brick wall....whats so hard to belive that our goverment would do this?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Why is it so hard? Because supposedly, the government represents the people, the public. The government is made up of people appointed BY the public, so for me to believe this government to plan and conspire to kill thousands of civilians and soldiers (Iraq) solely for financial gain I would need hard core substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I would like to believe that there are still good people running this country.

Whatever the case may be, besides gas prices shooting through the roof (URGH... I drive almost 100 miles a day, it kills me) I don't feel any different than before 9-11. I still would bleed blue for this country, because I love every bit american soil.

Edited for grammar

[edit on 30/5/06 by Mouth]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
There is plenty of evidence that shows the government is NOT here for the people but it is here for those with enough wealth to control it to their own ends.

Have you seen 'Operation Northwoods? The plan to stage terrorist attacks using drones to replace commercial aircraft, and then blame it on Castro? You can't say government doesn't think of doing this sort of stuff. BTW that was in 1962, corporations hold on the government is even stronger now than it was then.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Do some reading of real history. A great book if you can find it is "The Violent Decade" by Frank Gervasi. An American correspondent in Europe in the 1930's.
This book outlines clearly the way the media is controlled and how governments manipulate the press and the public to cover there true actions. It's nothing new, it's been going on since governments took over from the church as the state controller.

Don't be naive to think government gives a damn about us, we are just collateral damage. They are not here to work for us the 'peasants', they here are to work for the rich to maintain the power and wealth.

It's all a game to them, what else do you do when you have so much wealth you want for absolutely nothing? You play with countries, people, get drunk on power.

If they were really working for us we would have a far better world than we do.
All you have to do is think of the possibilities, they are endless. But government suppresses anything the rich don't benefit from.

(By government I don't mean the thousands of clerks, I mean those at the top who actually control and make policy)



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
All of this is pure silliness. The reasons the WTC are simple and have been explained many times. The fire didn't MELT steel it simply weakened it to the point that the weight collapsed the structure. Four inch think concrete slabs broke up when the 60ft steel beams below them distorted due to the heat of the fires. The steel tubing that made up the outer supports helped contain the debris.

Why is it the simplest solution does not suffice? A 767 crashed into a building and it collapsed. Period. Anyone that thinks that wasn't a 767 hasn't spent any time around aircraft. Get over it and realize that Moslems want you dead because you're not one of them.

There aren't any grand conspiracies... simply homicidal religious fanatics.

Fools may see Here



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
What is it you don't understand about 'the fires DID NOT get hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of failure'

To make 'mild' steel hot enough to be formed you need a direct heat of a yellow colour, the fires in the WTC were of a bright or deep red and were not concentrated on the steel columns. Mild steel has a low carbon content, steel used in construction is hardened, high carbon content, for strength, safety and wear. It take an extremely high concentrated heat to make it soft enough to form.

See this heat chart...

And this graph...
en.wikipedia.org...:Heat_transfer_steel_diag2.png

Also the columns would act as heat sinks, pulling the heat away from the point of contact and spreading it along the length of the steel (much like the heat sink on your CPU).
Thus the temperature is lowered at the point of heat contact.

It is pretty easy to de-bunk the heat failed column theory with simple science.

The other problem is even if it was fire that cause the failure of the columns the buildings would not have fell the way they did.

(Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself
, I think from now on I'll just cut and paste previous posts...LOL Or better yet why not read through a thread before posting?)

[edit on 30/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
You mean the same simple science that states steel loses morethan half of its strength if affected by temperature of circa 650 degrees and that plain wood burns at temeratures of around 700-1000 degrees? Paper a bit less I suppose but then WTC contained loads of different flammable materials at each floor.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join