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.

 

A Question of Collapse

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The twin towers fell due to plane impacts and fires, WTC7 fell because someone breathed on it.

I would like to ask these questions. How come the Murray building did not collapse after a hugh bomb had been placed in front of it and the suspsicion of bombs inside.

How is it that when other buildings have been bombed (some severly) that they dont collapse.

How come buildings that have been bombed and have burned for days still dont collapse?

Many large buildings in Iraq were hit by cruise missiles and bombs but they did not collapse.




posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Though plenty of burning building has collapsed. Plenty hasent.

You cant just compare buildings like that, every building is basically build diffrent.

Besides, the WTC fires wasent just fires. Enormous jet containing enormous amounts of fuel, crashed into them.

That the WTC's collapsed was a tragic event, triggered by pissed of muslims, and two towers which ofcourse wasent designed to be hit by so big airplanes, containg huge amounts of fuel, and at that speed.

[edit on 22/2/07 by Jugg]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Hi Jugg, You have proofs of course that it was pissed of muslims and buildings are made of the same material actualy, usually steel and concrete.

Yes the planes and fuel would have done alot of damge to any building but to destory them completly no I think not. In all other plane/building scenarios the buildings have never ever been completely destroyed.

Thats my point, buildings that have been subjected to continuous bombardment and fire very rarely disapear into the ground irrespective of what they are made of.

The complete collapse of 3 modern over engineered buildings could not of been brought about by the official story. The only possible explanation is that there was a secondary source of destruction after the first one.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi Jugg, You have proofs of course that it was pissed of muslims and buildings are made of the same material actualy, usually steel and concrete.

Yes the planes and fuel would have done alot of damge to any building but to destory them completly no I think not. In all other plane/building scenarios the buildings have never ever been completely destroyed.

Thats my point, buildings that have been subjected to continuous bombardment and fire very rarely disapear into the ground irrespective of what they are made of.

The complete collapse of 3 modern over engineered buildings could not of been brought about by the official story. The only possible explanation is that there was a secondary source of destruction after the first one.


Well it has been 6+ years now..you MUST have proofs of YOUR wild claims. No?

Speculation.. A infinite loop...so if you know you aren't going to PROVE anything..just what IS fueling your motivation?

Revolution?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Hi Gwion, what wild claims, I'm sure you have seen plenty of air disasters and the like, I'm sure you have seen plenty of bombed out buildings, The Murrah building was blown up was it not and it did not collapse completely did it. The Schipol are disaster where a plane flew into an apartment block it did not disappear into the ground did it.

If one keeps knocking on the door eventually you will get in. Maybe Americans need to grow some gonnads and march in the streets and tackle their corrupt Goverment its what we do in Blighty.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Look at the embassy bombing in Nairobi in 1998.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Hi Jugg, You have proofs of course that it was pissed of muslims and buildings are made of the same material actualy, usually steel and concrete.


Proof of pissed off muslims? Well your CT's seem to fond of videos and such, and theres IS a video of Bin Laden saying it was them

And yakno... plus all the evidence, like plans recovered and such.

Though buildings usually are made of steel and concrete, thats not all. Alot of other materials are used.

And even if it were the exact same materials of some other burning building they still werent build the same.

And that really is a major diffrence. Diffrent buildings are able to handle diffrent things.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jugg
Though plenty of burning building has collapsed. Plenty hasent.

You cant just compare buildings like that, every building is basically build diffrent.

Besides, the WTC fires wasent just fires. Enormous jet containing enormous amounts of fuel, crashed into them.

That the WTC's collapsed was a tragic event, triggered by pissed of muslims, and two towers which ofcourse wasent designed to be hit by so big airplanes, containg huge amounts of fuel, and at that speed.

[edit on 22/2/07 by Jugg]


What about WTC-7? No jets slamming and no jet fuel?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
How about the NIST's own models that simulated the damage to the columns from a jet and used fires twice as hot as anything they had evidence to support and burned for twice as long as the towers stood after the crash?

These models WOULD NOT COLLAPSE!!!!

You Debunkers need to stop ignoring this!

Regardless of proof, what evidence to you have to support any of your wild claims? about osama? about al-qaeda? about jet fuel causing steel to fail?

These buildings WERE designed to have fully loaded 707s crash into them. Despite the popular debunker misconception that there is some huge difference between the planes, there is not. The fully loaded weights and sizes of the two planes is very very similar. Also, the planes on 911 were not fully loaded nor were they fully fueled, so they were well below the design constraints of the towers.

And imagine, building specifically to withstand a jet impact and forgetting about the fuel....

The best evidence against the official conspiracy theory is the lack of evidence for it!

[edit on 2/23/2007 by sp00n1]

[edit on 2/23/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Well it has been 6+ years now..you MUST have proofs of YOUR wild claims. No?


I know this isn't the "proof" that you official people want, but there is proof in the way those buildings defied the laws of physics and engineering principles.

I have been studying for my professional engineering license and have come across a few things. I will not post my findings just yet because I haven't done the math but will do so in a few months when I have more time.

Just a trailor. It is an engineering principle that an unbraced structure's columns (WTC-7) will all fail in the same direction. By unbraced, I mean free standing columns supporting the structure (floors, walls, etc.) that are not braced to each other by spandrels etc. Especially when there is damage to just one side. They will not fail straight down.

Now, granted this was in the reinforced concrete section of my review book. The steel and masonry sections of my book didn't say anything about this, so I am assuming that the principle works for all three. There is not a timber design section of my review book, but I would assume that timber would behave the same.

Another thing. The NIST report shows only 2 bolts for one of the connections from trusses to columns. It is an engineering principle that the connections of a building are to be stronger than the materials they connect. I'm not so sure that 2 bolts would be stronger than those massive core columns. This priciple is used so we can design structures as a structure and not individual columns, beams etc. I have to do some calculations to make sure that that scenerio could even hold the floors as it was without fire.

To be continued.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
RIP TORN started a topic similar to this, although it was about discrediting BBC BS.

He and i made some irrefutable killer points that were related to this topic, but lo and behold, the entire topic got deleted....



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Why was it deleted? I'd like to see the posts.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I dont know, id like to know.

Ill try to remember what i had said and repost them here.

It was basically debunking nonsense arguments about how 500 degree fire was more than enough to cause collapse, or that "there was no molten metal" or that "there was absolutely no evidence for thermate" and etc..

Ill try to remember and repost it here in about an hour or so...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I'm usually not on during the weekend. So, if I don't respond, I'm not ignoring you.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
there are two sources that i can think of off the top of my head that support the claims made by magicmushroom and griff, one is, obviously, loose change.

The other is a book made by several civilians who have Ph.D's and have been hired at professors at colleges and universities, and a military eyewitness that discuss this. Its called "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out"

Both say that no building has ever EVER collapsed because of fire alone and several, not as sturdy buildings, have sustained airplane crashes and still stand.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Well it has been 6+ years now..you MUST have proofs of YOUR wild claims. No?

Speculation.. A infinite loop...so if you know you aren't going to PROVE anything..just what IS fueling your motivation?

Revolution?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by GwionX]


Yes 6+ years and no FBI or NTSB reports on any of the crash scenes.

6+ years and NIST still can not tell us what casued building 7 to collapse.

6+ years and still no real evidence or reports that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

My motavation is to find the truth of what happened that day.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by GwionX
Well it has been 6+ years now..you MUST have proofs of YOUR wild claims. No?

Speculation.. A infinite loop...so if you know you aren't going to PROVE anything..just what IS fueling your motivation?

Revolution?

[edit on 22-2-2007 by GwionX]


Yes 6+ years and no FBI or NTSB reports on any of the crash scenes.

6+ years and NIST still can not tell us what casued building 7 to collapse.

6+ years and still no real evidence or reports that flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

My motavation is to find the truth of what happened that day.


6+ years and bin Laden is still loose, plottting his next diabolical attack....

6+ years and Able Danger hearings still not held...

6+ years and nobody on this board has had a date.... (oh... sorry about that one.... it's off topic...)



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

6+ years and bin Laden is still loose, plottting his next diabolical attack....

6+ years and Able Danger hearings still not held...

6+ years and nobody on this board has had a date.... (oh... sorry about that one.... it's off topic...)


Gee and to think we were supposed to be such big and easy targets, no other major attacks in 6+years.

I don't know about you but i am happily married and have kids.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I found a video that covers the collapse of the trade centers in amazing detail, id like to see someone debunk this one


video.google.com...



new topics




 
2

log in

join