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.

 

What are the chances that BOTH towers would collapse?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindiggerIf the steel (as the BBC say) was weakened to the point of collapse by the heat, why did the 2nd tower to be hit, fall first?


Because of where it was hit. If they had both been hit in exactly the same place, at the same angle with the same energy and fell at widely different times, then I would be thinking "MMMMM weird".

If there was any conspiracy it was to cover up inept response to inital threat of a cover up of some dodgy building practice.

I am wondering if the whole 911 CTers cult is about disinfo to cover up the shody building practices.

$0.02




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ross Cross
I take everything that corporation broadcasts with a very big pinch of salt.

I notice the documentary didn't touch on the time it took the steel structure to collapse..the same amount of time had it collapsed through gravity, i.e. free of resistance.

I also noticed the spin on Alex Jones, and conspiracy theorists in general.

A documentary about 9/11 conspiracies..from the BBC..my expectations weren't raised before this production, and neither were they afterwards.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Ross Cross]


The towers didn't fall at the same rate as free fall. They fell at approximately 125mph, and freefall would've been 186mph. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose it's load bearing abilities, so the fact that it didn't melt bears no role in the collapse. The claims about Alex Jones and other likeminded folks aren't unwarranted. Depending on one's perspective, anything can be spin right(i.e. that doesn't conform with what I hold to be the case, therefore it's spin)?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota

I'll try to help.


7 fellover because it was designed as an office block and not a nuclear bunker.



Thanks for the help. The problem is that WTC7 fell straight down, not over. If it would have fell over it might make some sense. The simultaneous failure of every vertical support beam in WTC7 is what nobody has been able to explain, or even offer a reasonable theory for.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Okay, I suppose someone should also throw into the mix, in addition to the twin towers collapsing...

WTC7 collapsing.

Not to mention the mysteries still surrounding the Pentagon,

and whether or not the other plane was shot down in Pennsylvania or crashed due to heroic passengers.

Not to mention the coincidental NORAD exercises going on that day.

I wonder what the probabilities would be for all of the events combined.

Would be a mind boggling number, to say the least.

2 cents.


I'll try to help.

There were these planes see and they got hijacked then crashed into WTC 1&2 and the Pentagon. One plane crashed in a field possbly due to heroic counter terrorism measures of passengers. I am surprised you did not know it has been on the news.

7 fellover because it was designed as an office block and not a nuclear bunker. Therefore its resilience to impact from large amounts of debris was suspect.

The Norad exercises were as you indicate a coincidence.

Regarding probability my math is poor but as I see it, if something has happened it can't be impossible? So it nears the probable term more than improbable


Hope this helps.



So why was there an emergency command centre in WTC7?
Slightly remiss of the authorities to site such a facility in such a frail old shack. You cant have it both ways mate.
Oh and it didnt "fall over" it collapsed!
Try not to be so glib with your answers, i dont think you can quite carry it off.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by shindigger
Especially when WTC7 fell due to only 2 floors being ravaged by fire.


That is categorically false. I don't know if you are misinformed or outright lying, but there was much more going on at 7 than two floors on fire.

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...


The towers falls were not identical. The south tower tilted slightly before the global collapse. The north tower did not.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
People of the world are expected to believe that towers 1 and 2 collapsed due to being hit by planes and the ensuing inferno.

Ok, just say i accept that.

NONE of this applies to WTC7.

Thats not a consistent argument.

Whatever site you point me to, 3 buildings came down in their own footprint, only 2 of them were hit by jets and suffered the resultant trauma.

If some debunkers ask truth seekers to accept that the fuel, and the impact, caused 1 and 2 to fall then its entirely understandable that they question why 7 fell so readily and seemingly, to order without suffering anything like the trauma.

And the fact that the US government had so many critical facilities based in that building, it was hardly built as a chicken shack was it?
Have a nice day.


[edit on 21-2-2007 by shindigger]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Nick7261. My help was really for another, anyway...


Originally posted by nick7261Thanks for the help. The problem is that WTC7 fell straight down, not over. If it would have fell over it might make some sense. The simultaneous failure of every vertical support beam in WTC7 is what nobody has been able to explain, or even offer a reasonable theory for.


Apologies my use of the term "fell over" is a term used to mean collapse or break. It started in the 80s in the financial centre, onto technology then into the world. I thought ATS members would be up on the term, obviously not. Sorry.

Now yes as you say it is a puzzle but there is no proff positivefor either case. So without building a series of repeatable experiments I go for the obvious.

Can any reasonable person, other than CTers, believe that they build buildings thinking about how they will fall down? Or that they envisage vast amounts of debris hitting the structure? That they consider fire is kinda obvious but the buildings are designed to have a functional sprinkler system. No water no sprinkler system. Whatever scenario the builders thought of, I bet it did not consider a non functioning sprinkler system.

There were nasty fires there from what I see. The Fire Department, who as good as they are, are not suicidal fundamentalists, so decided not to go in the building. A bit telling. On all the lovely vids and pix that CT cultists use all you see are the flames on the outside obviously. No one knows what was going on inside. The 911 thing is really turning into something like one of those philosphical debates, with mind experiments. Noone wins no one loses. Really I think it a waste of time really. I come on these boards every now and then for a laugh.

Me I am a simple guy. I like it simple. It got damaged it fell down. Nice.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
Can any reasonable person, other than CTers, believe that they build buildings thinking about how they will fall down?


Since ultimate load, creep, shear stress, moments and yes deflection/failure are the basis of design, yes.


Or that they envisage vast amounts of debris hitting the structure?


You mean, like in a hurricane? Forces in hurricanes are larger than the force of gravity. If gravity was the only force bringing WTC 1 down, then how did it do so much damage when the building is designed for hurricane type forces? Remember that in a tornadoe it has been shown that a blade of grass can stick in a tree. That's some powerful forces.


That they consider fire is kinda obvious but the buildings are designed to have a functional sprinkler system. No water no sprinkler system. Whatever scenario the builders thought of, I bet it did not consider a non functioning sprinkler system.


I believe fire codes are 2 hours without the aid of sprinklers. I could be wrong though.


There were nasty fires there from what I see. On all the lovely vids and pix that CT cultists use all you see are the flames on the outside obviously.


I condensed that quote. First you say that from what you see (where are you seeing this?) there were nasty fires. Then, you state that of all the vids and pictures, you can't see the flames on the inside. Pray tell, how do you know there were nasty fires? Where you there?



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger
So why was there an emergency command centre in WTC7?
Slightly remiss of the authorities to site such a facility in such a frail old shack. You cant have it both ways mate.
Oh and it didnt "fall over" it collapsed!
Try not to be so glib with your answers, i dont think you can quite carry it off.


Perhaps maybe they did not expect a bunch of guys to fly planes into buildings in the neighbourhood? Frail old shack? Where do you get that from. I have enough words in my head, I don't need people putting others into it. I am not and never will be a brainwashed cultist like you 911 dreamers.

As I have said above, the phrase "fell over" is used in certain circles to mean collapse / broke. I thought ATS boarders may know this. I am not surprised that the 911 CT fablists have not heard of it, their high priests don't use it.


I am not trying to be glib, just speaking from the heart and they are my own words. Not some stuff brainwashed into me by some Cult.

Honestly, it will be a new religion with charitable status next.


Time for my bottle. Nigh night



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota

Originally posted by shindiggerIf the steel (as the BBC say) was weakened to the point of collapse by the heat, why did the 2nd tower to be hit, fall first?


Because of where it was hit. If they had both been hit in exactly the same place, at the same angle with the same energy and fell at widely different times, then I would be thinking "MMMMM weird".

If there was any conspiracy it was to cover up inept response to inital threat of a cover up of some dodgy building practice.

I am wondering if the whole 911 CTers cult is about disinfo to cover up the shody building practices.

$0.02


You cannot be serious.
Cult? I see Alex Jones and sometimes i cringe.
And even he isnt a cult leader. Not yet anyway.
Just be honest with yourself . I dont question the events of 9/11 out of a need to cope.
I wasnt bereaved or traumatised by it directly, but there are major inconsistencies in the official version of events.
I think any sane, awake, sentient, alive human being might feel the same.
Best regards.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
I'll try to help.

There were these planes see and they got hijacked then crashed into WTC 1&2 and the Pentagon. One plane crashed in a field possbly due to heroic counter terrorism measures of passengers. I am surprised you did not know it has been on the news.

7 fellover because it was designed as an office block and not a nuclear bunker. Therefore its resilience to impact from large amounts of debris was suspect.


1. NIST and FEMA reports state the planes impacts did not cause the buildings to callapse. The Empire State building was hit by a plane causing fires and structural damage and the building did not callapse.

2. As far as building 7, no steel bulding has ever callapsed due to fires and or structural damage. Also building 7 had a hardened bunker inside.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shindigger
NONE of this applies to WTC7.

Thats not a consistent argument.

If some debunkers ask truth seekers to accept that the fuel, and the impact, caused 1 and 2 to fall then its entirely understandable that they question why 7 fell so readily and seemingly, to order without suffering anything like the trauma.

And the fact that the US government had so many critical facilities based in that building, it was hardly built as a chicken shack was it?
Have a nice day.


Fact is chum no-one knows what happened there and there seems to be no chance of anymore proper evidence so why argue about it?
It fell down (over:lol
end of. All this post mortem stuff is nonsense.
I cannot see CT Cult followers coming up with the goods to prove anything other than the government line. Pretty graphics and doagy vids aint evidence imho. There was a thread here the other day saying wheres the plane that is supposed to be hitting a a tower. I could see it I noted that only non 911 CT Cultists said they could see it.

The fact is just by being a CTer you already have that seed in your mind. Your view will be biased. Do I believe all the stuff the US says. No I don't.

I just can't see how 911 CT Cultists can accept that some unknown bodies/body achieved all of this complex operation but forgot to disguise the demos footprint. They did not need to go down, get them damaged enough, no one would ever set foot in them again.

As for 7. No it was no chicken shack. But bet you a dolar to a pinch of shi....snuff that when they designed it they did not expect that amount of debris, that amount of fire and no sprinkler system. Can you see the planning meeting.

You mention that 7 had nothing like the same amount of trauma. But there again it did not have to stand so high so did not have to be so strong. There are more urgent things to attend to. I somrtimes think 911 CT Cultists know they are on dodgy ground with the towers so arelooking to 7 as their salvation.

Perhaps 7 was badly constructed and there is a conspiracy to cover that up and that is what the whole 911 CT Cult is about. Disinfo, to divert people from the truth. To me its as sound as the other nonsense.

It is a puzzle but I won't lose no sleep on it.

Remember the dead, life goes on for the living.

TT out.

My analyst is calling...



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota
Nick7261. My help was really for another, anyway...


Originally posted by nick7261Thanks for the help. The problem is that WTC7 fell straight down, not over. If it would have fell over it might make some sense. The simultaneous failure of every vertical support beam in WTC7 is what nobody has been able to explain, or even offer a reasonable theory for.


Apologies my use of the term "fell over" is a term used to mean collapse or break. It started in the 80s in the financial centre, onto technology then into the world. I thought ATS members would be up on the term, obviously not. Sorry.

Now yes as you say it is a puzzle but there is no proff positivefor either case. So without building a series of repeatable experiments I go for the obvious.

Can any reasonable person, other than CTers, believe that they build buildings thinking about how they will fall down? Or that they envisage vast amounts of debris hitting the structure? That they consider fire is kinda obvious but the buildings are designed to have a functional sprinkler system. No water no sprinkler system. Whatever scenario the builders thought of, I bet it did not consider a non functioning sprinkler system.

There were nasty fires there from what I see. The Fire Department, who as good as they are, are not suicidal fundamentalists, so decided not to go in the building. A bit telling. On all the lovely vids and pix that CT cultists use all you see are the flames on the outside obviously. No one knows what was going on inside. The 911 thing is really turning into something like one of those philosphical debates, with mind experiments. Noone wins no one loses. Really I think it a waste of time really. I come on these boards every now and then for a laugh.

Me I am a simple guy. I like it simple. It got damaged it fell down. Nice.


No, not nice. Not nice at all.
Perhaps the firemen were reluctant to enter WTC7 cos they'd heard explosions all over the place from ground/basement level in the other buildings. Im not going to even bother linking you to those testimonies or to all the footage that the mainstream broadcast in the first chaotic hour or two. Explosions explosions explosions.
Yet you try to score points over small points of vernacular.
Whenever im talking about a building, "falling over" means falling over.
"Crumbled to dust" means crumbled to dust.
Simple.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

The towers didn't fall at the same rate as free fall. They fell at approximately 125mph, and freefall would've been 186mph. Steel doesn't have to melt to lose it's load bearing abilities, so the fact that it didn't melt bears no role in the collapse. The claims about Alex Jones and other like-minded folks aren't unwarranted. Depending on one's perspective, anything can be spin right(i.e. that doesn't conform with what I hold to be the case, therefore it's spin)?


Thanks for your comments.

Did you watch the 'documentary'? If so, what is your take on the way in which the BBC represented Alex Jones..any views on this?

For a structure of that size to fall in on itself..which so much steel standing between the impact zone and the floor, it fell pretty quickly. In fact there wasn't much left of that structure if I recall. The steel would have surely put a degree of resistance between the beginning of the fall and the final part in which the WTC was a mass of obliterated rubble. To free fall from that height would also have to take into account a required build-up of velocity in order to reach maximum free-fall speed.

You also mentioned claims about Jones, but not which claims..the one's in the program? I believe the program presented spin where Mr. Jones was concerned because it neither focussed on nor presented the whole picture. My view is biased I'll admit that, where the BBC is concerned because I have seen the way they allegedly operate on a local level and let's say, as well as er, certain connections they have with corporations and politicians. I do not trust that corporation to give an accurate interpretation of events, beyond misrepresentation.

Whatever one's views on Mr. Jones, I feel that he was able to articulate his opinions very well on that program. He represents not only himself but a global audience who hold views on 9/11 and other issues such as the loss of freedoms and identity in America and beyond. You're right..anything can be viewed as spin..and I'd rather listen to both sides of the story before I conclude which is fact and which is prime propaganda fodder. When the BBC is presenting the news, or dealing with issues on race or politics, I simply do not believe this to be the case because I simply do not believe that corporation is impartial on any issue.

So in summary, I was left with the impression that program's intention was to:

a) Vehemently defend the official line

Or rather, defend the trail of thought the BBC considers worthy of defending by focussing on one inconsistency over another.

b) Portray Alex Jones as some kind of deranged "cult" leader

If Mr. Jones really is a cult leader then his cause is a global phenomenon. He is not the only person on this earth who does not agree with the official line regarding 9/11. The program also chose not to go into detail regard his views on why 9/11 happened, it only brushed the surface. I would have much preferred a more in-depth analysis of this, and an independent one at that.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Ross Cross]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

... all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

911research.wtc7.net...


How do you get from image A to image B in two seconds?

And why is there fire shooting out of the building in image B, when there was no fire visible in image A?

And how does an implosion start on the roof of the building, when there is no weight above it?


Image A


Image B


home.comcast.net...


Video of the sequence.
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 21-2-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. NIST and FEMA reports state the planes impacts did not cause the buildings to callapse. The Empire State building was hit by a plane causing fires and structural damage and the building did not callapse.

2. As far as building 7, no steel bulding has ever callapsed due to fires and or structural damage. Also building 7 had a hardened bunker inside.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Yea whatever. Yawn.

So let me guess it was Martian Death Rays? The subsequent fires and ongoing structural were playing no part in the collapse then? So at the Towers planning meetings they designed the buildings to survive hits from aircraft that were not in operational use then? Very perspicacious of them.

As I am sure you know the Empire State Building was a totally different build. That's like saying a driver would survive a 100 MPH crash in a Formula one car so he would survive a 100 MPH crash in a Reliant Robin (if you could get one there:lol
. The Empire State building was a typical big structure of old construct technology. Like the Pyramids, thicker at the bottom than at the top.

Just because something has not happened before doesn't mean it never will. Usually such structures have a functioning fire suppressing system, 7 didn't. Without a repeatable experiment No-one knows what went on in there and never will. Hypothesis is all you got. So being a simple guy I feel happier putting it in a box that says it fell down.

Ultimately, does any of this crud affect me? No it doesn't. I come over here for a laugh when I get fed up with the real world. I sleep soundly in my bed but when I work away I need something to lift my spirits and over here its like a holiday for my mind and knowing that all the paranoid brainwashed people are locked up in their bedrooms reading this nonsense means its safe for me to go outside. ATS is cheaper than Psychiatric care
The UN should fund it with its health budget


911 CT Cult is it the first cult to exist in Cyberspace?

Keep taking the pills guys, it will be alright when you wake up in the morning



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota

Originally posted by shindigger
NONE of this applies to WTC7.

Thats not a consistent argument.

If some debunkers ask truth seekers to accept that the fuel, and the impact, caused 1 and 2 to fall then its entirely understandable that they question why 7 fell so readily and seemingly, to order without suffering anything like the trauma.

And the fact that the US government had so many critical facilities based in that building, it was hardly built as a chicken shack was it?
Have a nice day.


Fact is chum no-one knows what happened there and there seems to be no chance of anymore proper evidence so why argue about it?
It fell down (over:lol
end of. All this post mortem stuff is nonsense.
I cannot see CT Cult followers coming up with the goods to prove anything other than the government line. Pretty graphics and doagy vids aint evidence imho. There was a thread here the other day saying wheres the plane that is supposed to be hitting a a tower. I could see it I noted that only non 911 CT Cultists said they could see it.

The fact is just by being a CTer you already have that seed in your mind. Your view will be biased. Do I believe all the stuff the US says. No I don't.

I just can't see how 911 CT Cultists can accept that some unknown bodies/body achieved all of this complex operation but forgot to disguise the demos footprint. They did not need to go down, get them damaged enough, no one would ever set foot in them again.

As for 7. No it was no chicken shack. But bet you a dolar to a pinch of shi....snuff that when they designed it they did not expect that amount of debris, that amount of fire and no sprinkler system. Can you see the planning meeting.

You mention that 7 had nothing like the same amount of trauma. But there again it did not have to stand so high so did not have to be so strong. There are more urgent things to attend to. I somrtimes think 911 CT Cultists know they are on dodgy ground with the towers so arelooking to 7 as their salvation.

Perhaps 7 was badly constructed and there is a conspiracy to cover that up and that is what the whole 911 CT Cult is about. Disinfo, to divert people from the truth. To me its as sound as the other nonsense.

It is a puzzle but I won't lose no sleep on it.

Remember the dead, life goes on for the living.

TT out.

My analyst is calling...


Good luck with your analyst.
I too, go about my life, unencumbered by grief over that day. Im a professional, doin ok thanks very much.
Im not, and never have been, a cultist, the UK sure doesnt do cults as well as the US.
Do you think the Jersey Girls are Cultists??
But i'll tell you something i'll never do, and that is put a smiley emoticon on ANY post i make here. Note to admin, I think these smileys should be topic specific.
WTC7 only becomes an issue to me, when debunkers dont apply the same rules to each side of the story. If the jet impact was good enough for 1 and 2 then what did for 7? It didnt suffer the impact of an airliner or a fireball. Why, if the bunker in 7 was selected (and presumably equipped) for emergencies, did the top brass not use it? Unless they knew what was to come?

Regards.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by T Trubballshoota

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. NIST and FEMA reports state the planes impacts did not cause the buildings to callapse. The Empire State building was hit by a plane causing fires and structural damage and the building did not callapse.

2. As far as building 7, no steel bulding has ever callapsed due to fires and or structural damage. Also building 7 had a hardened bunker inside.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Yea whatever. Yawn.

So let me guess it was Martian Death Rays? The subsequent fires and ongoing structural were playing no part in the collapse then? So at the Towers planning meetings they designed the buildings to survive hits from aircraft that were not in operational use then? Very perspicacious of them.

As I am sure you know the Empire State Building was a totally different build. That's like saying a driver would survive a 100 MPH crash in a Formula one car so he would survive a 100 MPH crash in a Reliant Robin (if you could get one there:lol
. The Empire State building was a typical big structure of old construct technology. Like the Pyramids, thicker at the bottom than at the top.

Just because something has not happened before doesn't mean it never will. Usually such structures have a functioning fire suppressing system, 7 didn't. Without a repeatable experiment No-one knows what went on in there and never will. Hypothesis is all you got. So being a simple guy I feel happier putting it in a box that says it fell down.

Ultimately, does any of this crud affect me? No it doesn't. I come over here for a laugh when I get fed up with the real world. I sleep soundly in my bed but when I work away I need something to lift my spirits and over here its like a holiday for my mind and knowing that all the paranoid brainwashed people are locked up in their bedrooms reading this nonsense means its safe for me to go outside. ATS is cheaper than Psychiatric care
The UN should fund it with its health budget


911 CT Cult is it the first cult to exist in Cyberspace?

Keep taking the pills guys, it will be alright when you wake up in the morning


The towers were actually designed to withstand a hit from a plane heavier than the one that (we are told) hit them.
You take pleasure and joy in the debate over the demise of 3000 people.
Eh???



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Ultimately, does any of this crud affect me? No it doesn't. I come over here for a laugh when I get fed up with the real world. I sleep soundly in my bed but when I work away I need something to lift my spirits and over here its like a holiday for my mind and knowing that all the paranoid brainwashed people are locked up in their bedrooms reading this nonsense means its safe for me to go outside. ATS is cheaper than Psychiatric care The UN should fund it with its health budget


Well, just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean the same for others. It appears that you don't respect other people's views..referring to them as a generic 'crud'..well, maybe you should tell that to the people who aren't here today. I draw nothing from your comments beyond diversion towards your own, personal issues with regard to what constitutes light relief. This site is bigger and better than that, where people can disagree without attacking others.

[edit on 21-2-2007 by Ross Cross]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I have been thinking about this and something crossed my mind. Everyone knows the images on the bills show the burning towers and such. What if the conspiracy goes that deep. What if the towers were build in a way that they could be collapsed? What do you guys think?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join