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.

 

The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF

page: 15
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And what exactly do those whistle blowers have to do with a controlled demolition.

Plenty of stuff stinks about 9-11, but that does not automatically mean there were bombs in the building. Hell, I'd even believe that the terrorists were actually sent by the Gov before I'd believe the controlled demolition hypotheses. I'd still need proof. Something lacking in most of the conspiracies surrounding 9-11.

PSA

Correlation does not equal causation.

A million coincidences does not equal evidence.


If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen below.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]




posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Taking this at it's most Basic: We all agree that the Towers were built to withstand the attack. The official line is that they never thought about the effects of the fuel - a pretty big blunder considering. Planes us it very often you know.

At a basic leven again: the Planes hit high on the Towers. Strange to the uneducated eye that they collapsed so easily. Presumably the lower part of the building was stable at the time???

We all know something isn't right, but we also know the guys in Power have a cast iron excuse for whatever we say.

"Beware the Ides of March Julius Caeasar" to which he should have said "Who told you?"



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And what exactly do those whistle blowers have to do with a controlled demolition.

Plenty of stuff stinks about 9-11, but that does not automatically mean there were bombs in the building. Hell, I'd even believe that the terrorists were actually sent by the Gov before I'd believe the controlled demolition hypotheses. I'd still need proof. Something lacking in most of the conspiracies surrounding 9-11.

PSA

Correlation does not equal causation.

A million coincidences does not equal evidence.


If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen below.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]


You would get much more credibility if you stated what your qualifications are to make these judgements.
What are they?

I'm just jumping into this thread and haven't read all the posts soooo.

I'm missing your point. You say the "bombs could never create the appearance below". Who said that bombs were involved in any way? To me that picture shows a global collapse caused by a structural failure.
How are you determining that it was caused by explosives. If thats what you're saying. Is that what you're saying?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Christophera
If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen.


You would get much more credibility if you stated what your qualifications are to make these judgements. What are they?


I'm a surveyor, draftsman, welder who has also done some above ground blasting and studied the blasters handbook for licensing.

However, ................ anyone who has watched television has seen bombs go off, and bombs blow big holes in things. That image shows all materials being uniformly pulverized and blowing outward in a huge wave. The notion that this happned twice (out of order) identically is absurd.


Originally posted by VushtaI'm just jumping into this thread and haven't read all the posts soooo.

I'm missing your point. You say the "bombs could never create the appearance below". Who said that bombs were involved in any way? To me that picture shows a global collapse caused by a structural failure.
How are you determining that it was caused by explosives. If thats what you're saying. Is that what you're saying?


A global failure of an all steel stucture (as FEMA claims it is, LIE!) does not look anything like that. The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!

A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.

A collapsing structure topples, buckles, folds and falls, big rectangular pieces tiilt over, tearing columns. Some columns won't tear and hang dangling other structure from them. Core columns are bared when outer columns fail and floors fall, (we see none ever) The image bears NO resemblence to a collapse. None whatsoever.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera


A global failure of an all steel stucture (as FEMA claims it is, LIE!) does not look anything like that. The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!

A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.

A collapsing structure topples, buckles, folds and falls, big rectangular pieces tiilt over, tearing columns. Some columns won't tear and hang dangling other structure from them. Core columns are bared when outer columns fail and floors fall, (we see none ever) The image bears NO resemblence to a collapse. None whatsoever.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]


If I had a vote for way above left you would get it. You have explained exactly what is wrong with both collapses of the buildings (not including WTC7..which is a different problem all together). I still can't believe people don't think something strange is afoot with the whole happenings on that day.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
..
A global failure of an all steel stucture (as FEMA claims it is, LIE!) does not look anything like that. The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!

A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.
..



So, sorry if i missed something, but if you wanted to pulverize the buildings by the push of a button (as observed, mind you) then HOW would you do it and how do you think it WAS done?



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


You will find a full account of the methods used here.

algoxy.com...

If I didn't have experience with structural steel and concrete as well as blasting AND saw a 1990 documentary about the construction of WTC 1, I wouldn't be able to say what I say with the surity I have.

What happened was caused by a VERY limited set of circumstances, collapse is not a part of that.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]




[edit on 6/16/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Yeah, good thing you saw a tv show in 1990. . .



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of the Entire preceeding post]


Yes. Using what I learned there makes it possible for me to identify the structural elments seen in images of the demolition.

The concrete core of WTC 2. the 3" rebar on 4' centers and the concrete shear wall are conclusive to the concrete core when no images of the steel core columns that FEMA asserts stood can be found from the many of the towers demise.

Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 6/16/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Unfortunately, this basically confirms my notions of unconventional weapons being used in the demolition, because i just don't buy that anyone would dare to build explosives into a building for use after decades, for simple reasons: abuse and no way to deny anything if somebody decides to probe the walls, because the evidence can't be removed in time.

Perhaps that's what happened, people with the codes demanded a few bn dollars and the gov't flipped the finger. the 2.3 trillion lost a day before 9/11 indicates something although i don't really know what to make of it.

www.cbsnews.com...

if you are right, these NWO people need to up their meds.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Your belief system is in for a shock.

The effects seen, taking 2 towers identically to the ground on 9-11 cannot be accomplished except with Optimally placed and optimally distributed explosives. Meaning they have to be built in. There is no way to do that throughout a structure otherwise. Even controlled demolition compromises that by just seeing that things are broken small enough to handle by machines.. At the WTC we have amazing "breakage", concrete reduced to SAND & GRAVEL. UNHEARD OF in the blasting industry.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I'm having a hard time with the explosives were built in theory.

How did it get done without anyone questioning why? It would be hard to do without anyone noticing during construction, or during repairs. 'Where do all these extra wires go to'?

And what about the fact that explosive deteriorate after time?

Personally I think they were planted during the weeks/months/year prior to 9-11.
There were lots of power downs, and plenty of opportunity at night to do this.
Especially when bush's brother was involved in the security.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And what exactly do those whistle blowers have to do with a controlled demolition.

Plenty of stuff stinks about 9-11, but that does not automatically mean there were bombs in the building. Hell, I'd even believe that the terrorists were actually sent by the Gov before I'd believe the controlled demolition hypotheses. I'd still need proof. Something lacking in most of the conspiracies surrounding 9-11.

PSA

Correlation does not equal causation.

A million coincidences does not equal evidence.


If you knew about high explosives, you would know that BOMBS could never, ever create the appearance seen below.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by Christophera]


Being an ex British Military Explosive and demolitions pioneer i would say this is exactly what it looks like when BOMBS are used. This picture is a classic pic of controlled dems in action. Not that im saying this is what happened on that dreadful day however this picture makes me very suspicious



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
Your belief system is in for a shock.

The effects seen, taking 2 towers identically to the ground on 9-11 cannot be accomplished except with Optimally placed and optimally distributed explosives. Meaning they have to be built in. There is no way to do that throughout a structure otherwise. Even controlled demolition compromises that by just seeing that things are broken small enough to handle by machines.. At the WTC we have amazing "breakage", concrete reduced to SAND & GRAVEL. UNHEARD OF in the blasting industry.


With all due respect, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Are you saying that by looking at a picture you can determine how a building failed? Thats preposterious. Hundreds of trained scientists whose expertise involves structural failure and finite element analysis all say otherwise, but you can look at a picture and prove them wrong??

You claim that the pulverization of concrete can only be explained by explosives.

Pulverization is how concrete fails under a number of circumstances. It doesn't bend. It doesn't stretch. It doesn't melt, etc. Under forces greater than its ability to endure it pulverizes.

That picture doesn't look anything like explosives were involved

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Actualy concrete tends to break up into pieces, not pulverise.

It took a lot of force to turn that concrete into dust, more than what gravity could have supplied imo...



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   


The oly concrete FEMA claims was there was in the floors. Concrete floors of any type do not turn dust and particulate when they fall!!!!!!!!!


Could you direct us to the part in the FEMA report that claims this? Just a page number will do.




A controlled demolition desn't even create that fine of particulate.


How are you determining this?




A collapsing structure topples, buckles, folds and falls, big rectangular pieces tiilt over, tearing columns. Some columns won't tear and hang dangling other structure from them. Core columns are bared when outer columns fail and floors fall, (we see none ever) The image bears NO resemblence to a collapse. None whatsoever.


Is this true of ALL buildings of all types of design and heights failing under any and all circumstances?




That image shows all materials being uniformly pulverized and blowing outward in a huge wave. The notion that this happned twice (out of order) identically is absurd.


Well no. Actually that is not what it shows at all.

It happened twice identically because the buildings were of the same construction and a global failure would cause the same effect and visual look when failing. Why is that odd? It would have been more odd if the would have collapsed differently.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   


Being an ex British Military Explosive and demolitions pioneer i would say this is exactly what it looks like when BOMBS are used. This picture is a classic pic of controlled dems in action. Not that im saying this is what happened on that dreadful day however this picture makes me very suspicious



Really?? A "top down" controlled demo? Can you provide us with more info on how that is done?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by LeftBehind
A million coincidences does not equal evidence.


I want to ask you one question......How many coincidences on 9/11 does it take to convince you? Obviously over a million...which is about what happened that day. Think about it.



No amount of coincidences will ever convince me of anything.

You can find millions of coincidences for anything if you look hard enough.

The Irish Did it

No amount of coincidences will ever amount to evidence. That's why we use different words to explain these concepts.

If coincidences were meaningful then numerology would be an actual science. Theres a reason it's called psuedoscience.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Actualy concrete tends to break up into pieces, not pulverise.

It took a lot of force to turn that concrete into dust, more than what gravity could have supplied imo...


Kinda depends on the forces involved doesn't it? We're not talking about a crack in a garge floor here.

I agree that it takes more than gravity. There was much, much more than gravity acting on the structure. But before we all go on a tangent, it a fallacy to say ALL the concrete was pulverized or that ALL the dust was concrete.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

There were lots of power downs, and plenty of opportunity at night to do this.
Especially when bush's brother was involved in the security.



Lots of power downs? Have any evidence other than Scott Forbes? Bush's brother was on the board of directors until 2000. I'm pretty sure that directors are not given hands on operations control, especially the kind that would allow them to set up such an elaborate conspiracy.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join