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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Did I miss something?


How where the tops of the building opened up?

Until the top disappears you can clearly see it is intact during the collapse. Especially in the air jet photo first shown.


I dont know why people cant think how this is impossible. When the top of the building supposedly crashes into the floor below, you really think that floor would not be breached and would work like a plug? It has to break away from the outside walls and break away from the center collumns. You think these things break evenly?

Pressure has always gone out the sides of every building collapse I have been on. You ever seen a building collapse? Believe me I have seen many chimneys go in the basement, things are so chaotic there is no way the floors would stay intact, they will break up, otherwise you would have a stack of floors at the bottom 110 feet high. Was there a stack of floors 110 feet high? No there was a pyroclastic flow just like a building being demo'd via explosives.

When I have time I will scan my firefighter textbooks on building construction and collapse. If you understand how a high-rise works, you will know there is not enough heat to make it so you have a steel failure with large sized steel beams. It is all about size of building and size of the steel used. Those buildings were over 100 stories, its too much building to heat one area to the point of failure. The building will always redistribute the heat away from the area that is burning. If you have a cement driveway, go out there and try to heat one spot with a blowtorch so it is red hot. You cant do it because th rest of the driveway works as a heatsink. Hopefuly this anology helps you understand what I am talking about.



[edit on 20-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Cypher says posted on 5/20/2006 at 05:40 AM Post Number: 2193888

For example, the "Analyzing the Collapses" that jtma508 posted, was written by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology. Now, if we were discussing the evolution of Eastern theology I would trust Mr. Griffin’s knowledge of the subject matter, but I do not trust him to adequately explain how a progressive collapse can or cannot occur.


That's sound logic! Attack the messenger. No need to intelligently analyze the message.




Cypher says posted on 5/20/2006 at 05:40 AM Post Number: 2193888

* * * most of the world's engineers, physicists, and demolition experts, believe that there is nothing to indicate that the towers collapsed from the anything other than the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.


Thanks for saying that. It's now clear where you're coming from. You didn't read the article. If you had read it you wouldn't have said that.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Dubiousone,

I fail to see how my conclusions were illogical. I did not "attack" Professor Griffin, I merely commented on his ability or lack thereof, to opine on the reasons why the twin towers collapsed. As I stated in my previous post, I simply do not believe that a lay person can understand the miriad of contributing factors that led to the collapse of the twin towers.

However, if you'd like, I will attack Prof. Griffin.
I do take issue with Prof. Griffin's essay because of his methods and his approach of the subject. Had he merely stated his opinion and then backed it up with testimony engineers and physists then I would I have no problem with his "Analysis of the Collapses" Sadly though, this is not the case. Instead, Prof. Griffin cites the few isolated individuals who agree with his opinion, takes quotes from supporters of the "official story" out of context to support his theory and ignores or belittles any expert's conclusion that do not agree with his.

Furthermore, I actually did read Prof. Griffin's essay. Although I must admit that about 3/4 of the way through it, I did start to just scan it, as I've seen the majority of that particular information before, and quite honestly Griffin's writing style is rather dull. But, unless I missed something big, my statement still stands true, most of the world's engineers, physicists, and demolition experts DO believe that there is nothing to indicate that the towers collapsed from the anything other than the impact of the planes and the resulting fires. In fact, of all the engineers, physicists and demolition experts, that Prof. Griffin quoted in the essay, almost of all them actually support the official explanation of a progressive collapse.

-Cypher



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
It's not air blast that is venting out, that's for sure. Must be some strong air if it blasts out concrete. You pancake-theory followers forget that it's not a "hollow tube", and whatever falls down inside cannot fall past the floor it is on, untill that floor collapses totally, and falls onto the next floor. It's not a house of cards!
And elevator shafts are MINIMAL in diameter, to make maximum use of the EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE floor area!



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Open your eyes and let your mind comprehend.

There's no mystery about what happened on 9-11-2001. Watch the videos of the Towers and WTC7 collapsing. Watch them 1,000 times. It is patently clear that the buildings didn't merely collapse upon themselves due to the planes and the fires.

The collapses were too surgical. The official version defies the laws of physics, ignores the testimony of eyewitnesses, doesn't explain why the core columns went down that way (why didn't the core columns remain jutting up hundreds of feet when the dust settled?), why and how was the rebar reinforced concrete of the towers reduced to a fine powder, why were there pools of molten steel several stories below street level, and why the cover-up and lack of proper investigation.

Watch the videos over and over, especially WTC7 which collapsed upon its footprint in perfect controlled demolition style, just like the two towers.

The finger pointed too quickly in the direction of culprits who formed the perfect justification for pre-planned invasions of other countries.

DENY IGNORANCE. Set aside your deeply ingrained resistance to the possibility that insiders could have done this. I didn't want to believe it either. No other rational explanation exists.

I'm fed up with all the lies, cover-up, diversions, and scapegoating of incompetents who could not possibly have pulled this off.

The events of 9-11-2001 must be investigated by an independent body of experts. Those responsible and all their conspirators must be rounded up, brought to justice, and punished to the severest extent of the law regardless of their social, political, and economic status.

The emporer's clothes are being shed. The smokescreens are clearing. The real vermin will soon be exposed and seen scurrying for their holes and pointing their fingers at each other.

[edit on 5/21/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I wonder if we will ever have a solid, definite answer about what really happened that day.


I also highly doubt it was the floors collapsing upon themselves, but I have no other explanation to it...so I'm all open to suggestions.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
This is easily explained. The 2 crashes destroyed what they hit, however when they hit they sent ton's of debris falling. The debris you see in the picture is just a small amount of the debris being pushed out a window by the huge force of the 2 explosions. The pancake may not have reached those 2 floors, but the debris sure did.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANGE_MASTER
This is easily explained. The 2 crashes destroyed what they hit, however when they hit they sent ton's of debris falling. The debris you see in the picture is just a small amount of the debris being pushed out a window by the huge force of the 2 explosions. The pancake may not have reached those 2 floors, but the debris sure did.


I implore you to watch movies as such:

Network
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Matrix

...watch these for starters while I compile a whole list of movies that have the "wake up you freakin' idiot, you're completely being deceived can't you see it!" backdrop.

Happy brainwashing.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
In defense of Dr. Griffin's paper, he did cite all the sources from which he presented material. I thought the most salient parts were directly related to NIST's findings. Specifically that there was no evidence that the core columns had been subjected to any significant amount of heat and that only a small percentage of the perimeter columns had.

Also, in regards to the modeling, NIST modeled the physicis of the building up to the failure point. However, it is my understanding that the model stops at that point. NIST never actually modeled the collapse. That being the case, the 'pancake theory' has no official basis. It, like everything else, is speculation. Just because NIST came up with A model for the failure that does not mean the model can be extrapolated to explain the collapse.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I think it is the coffe pots all blowing at once,,,,,,,, (Could be)



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Dubiousone,

At the risk of repeating myself, There is no way that you as a lay person can tell what brought down the twin towers from watching the videos of it. If you do not and can not understand the mechanics of what you are seeing, then your personal belief that

The collapses were too surgical.
is at best uninformed, and at worst, blatantly embracing ignorance.

It is obvious from my postings in this thread and others, that I believe the "official story" of how the towers fell. However, this is in no way, shape or form indicative of a closed mind. In fact it is just the opposite. If those who have the knowledge and capability to truly understand the difference between a progressive collapse and a controlled demolition believed that the towers were brought down by planted explosives, then I would believe them and be just as outraged as you are. However, the fact remains, that majority of qualified experts do not believe in the various conspiracy theories. And unless one is prepared to believe that they themselves are all actively engaged in, or sympathetic to, the conspiracy, then there is no reason to doubt their professional, expert opinions.

______________________________________________________________________________

jtma508,

You of course are correct that Prof. Griffin did indeed fully footnote his essay, and included some links to the sources he cited. However, I still contend that his essay was basically useless as a research paper on why the two towers collapsed, and here's why...

First, as I stated before; Prof. Griffin, throughout his essay, uses selected quotes from supporters of the "official story" to support his theory while virtually ignoring the factual arguments they made to explain why they believe as they do.

(ie: In footnote #8, Prof Griffin cites MIT Professor, Thomas W. Eagar's acknowledgement that the fires in the twin towers were highly unlikely to have burned hot enough to actually melt steel. I would assume, since Prof. Griffin doesn't actually cite the source, that he took this reference from this report, which was posted earlier by zerotime in Post Number: 2190715. However, Prof. Griffin selectively uses that particular conclusion by the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student at MIT, while barely touching on their argument that;

the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
and their scientific arguments that support that conclusion. Furthermore, when he does address their arguments, he offers NO scientific proof for his counter arguments.)

Second, Prof. Griffin repeatedly uses the testimony of fellow 9/11 "researchers" and/or unqualified "experts" to negate that of those who are actually qualifed to comment on the subjects in question. (ie: In the example above, Prof. Griffin cites Eric Hufschmid (himself a questionable character in 9/11 research circles) as evidence that;

the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin
and also, as evidence that;

to weaken the steel columns, (the fire) would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting
Prof. Griffin also cites Jim Hoffman a number of times, even though Mr. Hoffman, while an admittedly gifted software engineer, has no practical experience in material engineering, construction.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Prof. Griffin, or ANY 9/11 conspiracy theorists for that matter, on a personal level. I'm merely stating that from my perspective, the usefulness of Prof. Griffin's essay in regards to a scientific debate on this matter is virtually nil.

-Cypher

P.S. jtma508 You are again correct that NIST did not model the actual collapse of the buildings, but only the physics up to the point of failure that initiated the collapse. But, as I stated before, it is my understanding that the NIST engineers and others, believed that once the progressive collapse was initiated, the results were predetermined, and that the usefullness of modelling the collapse itself would result in little additional knowledge. This may or may not be debateable, but I personally believe it is at least fully understandable, as the other alternative is to assume that all of those engineers either are part of the conspiracy or have reasons to keep quiet about it.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Cypher]

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Cypher]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I understand what you're saying Cypher and you have a perfectly valid point. Griffin, like others, does tend to cite those individuals whose opinions support his argument. Kinda like the way Bush, who does not have a degree in either economics or political science to the best of my knowledge, surrounds himself with 'experts' who support his views, opinions and agendas. And if they don't, they're bounced for those that do.

Lots of experts have come out questioning the official story. Several professionals involved in controlled demolitions have stated their opinion that it was CD. Several NYFD have questioned what happened. Military personnel in the vicinity of the Penatgon said they smelled cordite. But it really doesn't matter. There are questions, lots of questions. Whether they will ever be answered are anyone's guess.

When the recent Pentagon footage was released we were told before hand by the goevernment that this will put an end to all the conspiracy nutcases. Yet any reasonable person upon seeing that footage can only scratch their heads. How can anyone look at that and say, Yup. 757. Case closed. But they certainly want us to.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cypherit is my understanding that the NIST engineers and others, believed that once the progressive collapse was initiated, the results were predetermined, and that the usefullness of modelling the collapse itself would result in little additional knowledge.


This is certainly odd considering no skyscrapers had ever fallen like that before 9/11, so I would imagine they would've had no scientific data on how progressive collapses worked.

To this day, neither NIST nor anyone else has explained how the global collapses occurred in detail.

Have you seen this?



That's WTC2's core still standing. There is at least one more photo of that, and several of WTC1's core standing after the perimeter/truss collapses.

That PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that those collapses cannot be totally explained by progressive collapse or any number of pancake theories. The cores did NOT pancake or fall floor-by-floor, but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The cores did NOT pancake or fall floor-by-floor, but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions.

lol, yet you show a pic of the core base still standing.

Also, millions of people were watching the buildings fall live. With both buildings the base (core, outter wall, etc.) all stayed intact until the end of the collapse. Now you're saying that the millions of people who saw it live are wrong and you're the sole person who saw the base collapse first?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by bsbray11
The cores did NOT pancake or fall floor-by-floor, but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions.

lol, yet you show a pic of the core base still standing.


You apparently don't understand what I'm saying.


Also, millions of people were watching the buildings fall live. With both buildings the base (core, outter wall, etc.) all stayed intact until the end of the collapse. Now you're saying that the millions of people who saw it live are wrong and you're the sole person who saw the base collapse first?


Yeah, you don't get it.

Who's saying the "base" fell first, Holmes? Or that the "base" fell at all? WTF are you even talking about with tower bases falling? Where are they falling, from the ground to the ground? Because usually bases are on the ground.

I said core, meaning the center, gravity-load-bearing structure of the WTC Towers. And I didn't say they fell first, either. I said they fell from the base. Watch a video of WTC1's spire. It fell straight down, from the base, ie, no pancaking.

If you don't know what I mean when I talk about pancake collapse theory, check out this page and educate yourself.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

You said "but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions."

Why are you telling me to watch the videos if you're saying this it's obvious you haven't seen any videos as neither building fell like conventional demos. In conventional demos what's blown up? The base. Why? So the building can fall in on itself. With the Towers, again, the base (core and all) stayed completely intact until the collapse reached that point. In no video ANYWHERE can you see the building falling straight down from the base.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

You said "but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions."


Yeah, and what I said makes sense. I don't know what you're thinking, but considering you just thought I said the bases fell, you could be thinking all kinds of distorted and inaccurate things right about now.


Why are you telling me to watch the videos if you're saying this it's obvious you haven't seen any videos as neither building fell like conventional demos.


God, you are dense and argumentative. I said the CORES! fell like conventional demos. They fell SEPARATELY from the rest of the buildings. See WTC2's core standing? Guess what? It fell too. Not from the top down, though. It fell from the bottom (ie, the base, fell down ONTO the base, not the base itself falling -- just so we're perfectly clear), straight down upon itself, which is what conventional demos do. I can even post you a cute little gif from Howstuffworks.com if you want.


In conventional demos what's blown up? The base. Why? So the building can fall in on itself.


That's exactly what the cores did.

I don't think you understand yet that the cores falling were completely separate events from the collapses of the perimeter columns and trusses. I'm not even sure that you know the differences between the three.


With the Towers, again, the base (core and all) stayed completely intact until the collapse reached that point. In no video ANYWHERE can you see the building falling straight down from the base.


Yeah, this just confirms it, again. You have no idea what I'm talking about.

Here's WTC1. Maybe you'll be able to see this one better:



See that thing sticking up in the air? Everyone else here, including Howard, recognizes that this is part of the core structure still standing.



You can see it there too. Notice that the rest of the building has already collapsed.

In 9/11 Eyewitness you can watch the whole thing: the perimeters/trusses fall, the spire (remaining core structure) keeps standing, and then falls straight down upon itself.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
That 'sliver' that's standing in the bottom pic is the exterior wall, not the 'core'.

I'm not sure why you guys are still arguing. It's obvious that everyone here has long since made up their minds. All I see in 9 pages is people using personal attacks and nit-picking over every piece of info thats presented. Anything that doesn't agree with someone's point is from an unreliable source, and everyone that doesn't agree with them should 'open their eyes'. Yet, no one is open-minded about any of the info presented. Move on already.

The buildings got hit, they burned, they fell. Mystery solved. If it's a coverup, there should be TONS of people that would be coming forward by now. It would required dozens of people to rig just one building, and 5 times that many to put the rest of it together. I guess they just killed all of them and brainwashed their families and loved ones into forgetting the existed...

[edit on 22-5-2006 by sp00ner]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00ner
That 'sliver' that's standing in the bottom pic is the exterior wall, not the 'core'.


I wonder, why are you the only person suggesting this? Do you know something that we don't?

Those things sticking up in the air there are box columns. If you watch the video footage showing the whole thing, you can see very clearly that those are box columns, and not the perimeter columns linked together with spandrel plates and all of that. The box columns in the core didn't have spandrel plates, unlike the perimeter columns, and neither do those columns that are still sticking up in the air. They're also farther apart and spaced just as the core columns were, and not as the more closely-linked perimeter columns were, which again had spandrel plates connecting them.

And you also have the problem of WTC2's core also staying put, and it's even more obviously not the perimeter:



[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by sp00ner
That 'sliver' that's standing in the bottom pic is the exterior wall, not the 'core'.


I wonder, why are you the only person suggesting this? Do you know something that we don't?

Those things sticking up in the air there are box columns. If you watch the video footage showing the whole thing, you can see very clearly that those are box columns, and not the perimeter columns linked together with spandrel plates and all of that. The box columns in the core didn't have spandrel plates, unlike the perimeter columns, and neither do those columns that are still sticking up in the air. They're also farther apart and spaced just as the core columns were, and not as the more closely-linked perimeter columns were, which again had spandrel plates connecting them.

And you also have the problem of WTC2's core also staying put, and it's even more obviously not the perimeter:



[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]


Becuase that shot of the sliver of wall standing there is in about 100 different places. Video, photos, etc...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join