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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by LeftBehind
..........
There were no bombs going off before the impact.



Why oh why if there were any explosions they "have to have been from explosives or bombs"?

If it can be proven that there were explosions just before the impact of the planes, don't you think it would be linked and prove a conspiracy? I mean what would be the odds of some janitor’s closet blowing up just before the plane hitting?

Come on, you are smarter than that.




posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ANOK
How about explaining this to me...



That's the South Tower. How did the top loose it's momentum and suddenly cause the lower undamaged structure to fall vertically onto itself ejecting outer core columns 600 ft while turning concrete, office furniture, people etc... into a fine dust that covered lower Manhattan?

I've asked you all this question many times. None of you have even tried to answer it.

What that tower did was physically impossible without help from some other force causing the columns in the lower undamaged part of the building to fail equally.

What should have happened is the top should have continued to topple off taking part of the lower structure on the pivot side with it. A chaotic, non-symmetrical collapse, just like every building in history that has been damaged or bombed (non-demo).


Sry for quoting myself but once again this very important question is being ignored.
Until you can satisfactorily answer this then all other points are not even worth discussing imo. Nobody gonna tackle this one?


Hehe, nobody want's to say it, but there is no other explanation than explosives of some sort. The top was pulverized in mid air and the lower floors just didn't offer any resistance. To me this is the smoking gun... And yeah, NOBODY has given any sort of reasonable explanation for this...



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Yea. I agree. In the case of a pancake collapse, floors collapsing on one another actually slow down the collapse, not speed it up as did happen on 9/11. This speeding up of collapsing floors is consistent with controlled demos.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
So, to sum it up,

This is the main peice of evidence that explosions happened before plane impact.


ust seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the Tower.


From one guy in the basement, who peiced together the timeframe after the fact.


This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor.


Who told him this? Did anyone tell him the first explosion was the impact?

Not exactly rock solid here folks.

And what about the twenty two other people with him? Why have they not come forward?


www.studyof911.com...

There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.


Or was it fourteen?


who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia


Is it not possible that the first thing they felt was the plane impact, and the other explosions were caused by the plane impact?

[edit on 27-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Apologies, trying to upload diagram of lift shafts in wtc but don't seem to be able to get it right. New here so being a bit of a clutz!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   



Halleluya!!!

This 3d diagram of the lift shafts in WTC 1 and 2 is taken from the "Wired New York" Forum, where a group of people are trying to put together an accurate 3d picture of the World Trade Centre Complex. I think its very useful to see clearly the layout of the lifts, including the breaks in the lift shafts, which I have read were there to prevent fires travelling throughout the whole building and also to allow office space above lift shafts to be utilised.

You can see clearly that only one lift, the freight lift, travels the whole height of the building.

In WTC1 the freight lift operator, Arturo Griffith was travelling from basement level 2 to the 49th floor when the plane hit. The lift cable snapped causing it to fall approx 15 floors before the emergency brakes caught. He and his passenger both suffered impact injuries as a consequence but no burns.

I find it impossible to believe that a fireball large enough to cause the damage sustained in the lobby of WTC1 could leave them not only alive but not burnt.

I have other diagramatic images of the lift shafts, which are not so clear, and also one of the floor plan of the lobby showing positioning of lifts. Let me know if you would like me to post them.

Many thanks for your patience, and btw, I love ATS - the only place I've found where I can see both sides of the argument!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Good job on that picture Mayacara, and welcome to ATS.


Back to the collapse of WTC7, I was wondering if anyone has a timeline on when everyone was evacuated from the building. I have been wondering about this since someone brought up that Giuliani mentioned that they knew the buildings were going to collapse. Did they evacuate all the buildings including WTC6, because with the damage it sustained there must have people that were killed there as well, but have not seen anything about it? I ask because this may be another clue that others had prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

I have not spent much time looking yet, but if someone has already covered this, I would be grateful for more info.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Come on guys its very simple. Here is the only thing you need to know.

Newton’s first law of motion:
An object at rest tends to stay in rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by an external, unbalanced force.

Its a very simple calculation. Something falling through air, unimpeded will take 10 seconds to fall 410 meters. The buildings took 10 seconds to fall. How can a building which is undergoing a pancake collapse encounter no resistance as each floor falls onto the next?

The laws of nature obey no man. This is scientific evidence that their model is wrong. Ask any Physicists if a piano falling through the floors of a building will fall faster or slower than a piano falling through air (say dropped from the roof of the building over the side) and you will always get the same answer. Not only will the piano falling through the floors of the building take longer to reach the bottom, it will slow down as it progresses – not speed up.

Apply this concept to the collapse of the towers and you can easily see that the collapse should have taken far longer than 10 seconds, and it most certainly should not have accelerated.

This is not rocket science, it is not structural engineering, IT IS HIGHSCHOOL PHYSICS. Wake up people.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Right. No evidence for Controlled Demolition at all. Unless of course you count Newtonian Physics. Garden Spider wrote a good thread about it here.



You can read almost anywhere online, that Building 7 is 230 meters tall. There are three different videos of the building collapsing (or at least, three that I could find), so I used a stop watch and timed all three videos, using the corner of the building as my frame of reference. Once it started moving, I started timing. Admitedly, it's going to be hard with the videos we have to get an extremely precise timing, but I think we can get pretty close by averaging the three results.

Video 1 - 4.84 seconds
Video 2 - 4.90 seconds
Video 3 - 4.98 seconds

Average fall time - 4.91 seconds

I then took the two simple physics equations.

a = v/t
and
v = d/t

Giving us a = (d/t)/t

a = the rate at which the building fell.
v = velocity
d = distance
t = time

Gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared, and if what I read was accurate, the above equation should more or less equal 9.8 mps2. So let's do the math.

a = (230/4.91)/4.91
a = 46.84/4.91
a = 9.54 mps2

Pretty close to 9.8mps2, or the rate at which something would have free fallen from that height.

Now, if the building had collapsed due to debris damage, fires, and everything else that the official story leads us to believe, then there would have been resistence from the portions of the structure that were undamaged. It would have been a jagged, rough collapse, not a smooth fall like we see in the videos.


So yea, I agree, if you don't believe in newtonian physics or math, then there is no evidence for controlled demolition. This is by no means definitive proof, but to say there's no evidence is just asanine and stupid.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
This is probably irrelavant, and somebody else has already probably said it but i do remeber seeing an interview with three firemen after 9/11 and they all said that they thought it was a controlled demolition because what they saw was the structure of the building breaking from the floor up and they all swear they heard explosions from beneath the building and such things like that, i think it was on google video or something like that, i cant quite remeber it just came to mind though



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros


Its a very simple calculation. Something falling through air, unimpeded will take 10 seconds to fall 410 meters. The buildings took 10 seconds to fall. How can a building which is undergoing a pancake collapse encounter no resistance as each floor falls onto the next?



The buildings (WTC 1 and WTC 2) did not fall in 10 seconds. This is an extremely stinky-dead beat horse. Please check into this. They fell in 14 to 16 seconds. 1/3 the rate of acceleration due to gravity.

Repeat...the buildings did not fall in 10 seconds.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
You have proof of that Val?? Cause that is the 1st time I have heard that..

And thanks for getting me that kink to that stuff I asked about earlier... or not..



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
You have proof of that Val?? Cause that is the 1st time I have heard that..

And thanks for getting me that kink to that stuff I asked about earlier... or not..


Yeah, there's multiple videos from different perspectives, and plenty of threads linking same and discussing such right here on ATS. I don't believe there is any serious 911 conspiracy theory group that has a problem with the evidence available on this point.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
distance = inital speed * time + 1/2 * acceletation * time^2...
s = ut + 1/2at^2
s = 1/2at^2

Building is 410 meters high. Acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s/s

410 = 1/2 * 9.8 *t^2
83.67 = t^2
t = 9.147 seconds.

Add another 5 seconds due to a number of factors such as the fact hot gas rises. And the explosions took time to go off. And the dust cloud was vertically quite tall so you need to decide when the actual collapse is over.

The point is a pancake collapse should have taken around 90 seconds, no where near the actual time.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros


The point is a pancake collapse should have taken around 90 seconds, no where near the actual time.


Yeah, I'll make a note of that statement as a fact. Thanks....and you calculated this with which Cray computer, and using whose algorithms?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

The buildings (WTC 1 and WTC 2) did not fall in 10 seconds. This is an extremely stinky-dead beat horse. Please check into this. They fell in 14 to 16 seconds. 1/3 the rate of acceleration due to gravity.

Repeat...the buildings did not fall in 10 seconds.

That's not us saying that, it's the seismic data showing that the buildings fell down at 8 and 10 seconds. Additionaly, if the seismic data is wrong, you really should call the guys at NIST because they also claim the buildings fell down at 8 and 10 seconds.

But if you are right about your 14-16 seconds and both the seismic data and the NIST are wrong, this suggests once again that the investigation of the most outrageous crime of this century is based on fallacies. Now how is it that the supposedly prestigious National Institute of Science And Technology turns out wrong and simple people like you and I turn out right?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
No, the seismic data does not say that. And in addition, the NIST report doesn't say it, but what did happen is that in the initial stages of the NIST investigation (in one of their preliminary reports) they reported that erroneous statement - which goes along way toward showing how they jump to conclusions and didn't do their homework on issues before speaking on them. Then what you'll find is that the 911 Commission Report officially reported the erroneous times based on the preliminary statement made by NIST which is now retracted.

Believe it or not - I've already researched this, and we've discussed it at length.

Don't bother asking me to get with NIST on anything. I have in the past and they ignored my request for data just the same as they have other individuals and groups. I'll only wipe my backside with the report when the last tree has fallen.

[edit on 11-27-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
archive.mail-list.com...

"Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor
during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official
story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is 'bogus' and that it
is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and
adjacent Building No. 7."

WND quotes Reynolds as stating further, "Only professional
demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated
with the collapse of the three buildings."

Whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via "an
inside job" or not, one thing is certain: the attacks of September
11, 2001 became the catalyst that propelled Congressmen to quickly
pass the USA Patriot Act even though none of them had read it.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Back to the collapse of WTC7, I was wondering if anyone has a timeline on when everyone was evacuated from the building.

I am only remembering this from memory but I think that Guliani testified at the 9/11 commission that WTC7 was evacuated around 10:30 in the morning. His testimony also revealed that FEMA did indeed set up camp in NY the day before.
Both of these comments would raise a lot of questions so you won't find Guiliani's testimony on the 9/11 Commission Report website, it's the only testimony that was removed, ask yourself why!

To this day, not a single firefighter has come out stating that he was involved in fighting the fires in WTC7.

Now, the idea that Silverstein decided to "pull it" meaning "pull out the firefighters" looks kinda stupid because that alleged phone call took place in the afternoon according to Silverstein's spokeswoman, even if there had been any firefighters in there, they would have been evacuated in the morning, so how did Silverstein "pull them out" when there weren't there in the first place?

Sure would be nice if we had a single firefighter or a single radio recording showing that there had been any sort of a firefighting effort in WTC7.
When firefighters get involved, they always write a report or make notes (like cops do) but there are no records available of any firefights taking place in WTC7.




top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join