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 Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Ok in the first pictures you cant prove that isnt just hot coals from a fire, I think we have all seen that in our lifetime. Once again do you know what proof is??
And nice try on the aluminum as you can see here aluminum can glow red also.


yes if you trap it in a furnace, you can do that. molten metal in crushed buildings tends to flow around, thereby evading further heating, butt hat's all moot since the temperatures matter, not the metals.

in order to get coal to glow like that you'd need a lot of oxygen - which wasn't there, you'd also need substantial amounts of coal to last for weeks (furniture won't do, that's low quality fuel) and you'd need coal that resists enormous amounts of water poured into the rubble for weeks on end.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by geemony

LL this is my first attempt at finding the answers, please have some patience with me. Most of the data im seeing for the first time however, I dont just believe its true casue you all say its true. You have to prove it to me before ill take a side.


the post was not directed at you and i did not even quote you. that said, there are a few old threads which were debated to death once upon a time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



it's unfortunate that the pentagon issue remains a bottomless pit without any sensible resolution in sight.

the worst thread on these forums:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a link on the pentagon, which you might appreciate

www.911studies.com...



follow-ups like www.abovetopsecret.com... pop up in regular intervals, though and you'll understand how tedious it gets, even though i'm still trying to post in such threads if i notice them.

let's see if

www.abovetopsecret.com...

tickles your paranoid sense. i'm more than willing to share links, but the categorical denial exhibited around here does get the best of me sometimes (unfortunately).



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by earth2

You misunderstood me, I didnt say from the impact of the plane.
The tons and tons of building collapsing will cause some air pressure when it starts collapsing on it self. And the least amount of resistance will not be going through the collapsing top it will be through the elevator shafts ect that have clear open space.No resistance there and it will find all openings to escape.


I just debunked the squid theory in my earlier post... Earth2 is correct


Acutally, your debunking is catagorically false. A building that collapses in the fashion the twin towers has will not build up air pressure. The reason being, the jets flew into the buildings, essentally gutting several floors, causing a giant gaping hole in the building, which we can all see in the videos.

So if the building began to collapse, the air would not build up pressure below, as it has plenty of room to escape out the top, through the mass of debris. Tons and Tons of debris will nto fall in a uniform and airtight manner. It is simply an impossibilty, as any air trying to escape will be able to move around and through the various debris, which is not falling in an airtight fashion.

So I'm sorry, but your squib debunking does not fall in line with even the most simple laws of physics.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by earth2

You misunderstood me, I didnt say from the impact of the plane.
The tons and tons of building collapsing will cause some air pressure when it starts collapsing on it self. And the least amount of resistance will not be going through the collapsing top it will be through the elevator shafts ect that have clear open space.No resistance there and it will find all openings to escape.


I just debunked the squid theory in my earlier post... Earth2 is correct


Acutally, your debunking is catagorically false. A building that collapses in the fashion the twin towers has will not build up air pressure. The reason being, the jets flew into the buildings, essentally gutting several floors, causing a giant gaping hole in the building, which we can all see in the videos.

So if the building began to collapse, the air would not build up pressure below, as it has plenty of room to escape out the top, through the mass of debris. Tons and Tons of debris will nto fall in a uniform and airtight manner. It is simply an impossibilty, as any air trying to escape will be able to move around and through the various debris, which is not falling in an airtight fashion.

So I'm sorry, but your squib debunking does not fall in line with even the most simple laws of physics.


Umm No wrong,

Regardless of the size of the hole created in the building by the impact of the plane, the debris falling fell PAST the impact point of the plane and while traveling down creates an air pressure wave in the INTACT PARTS of the building which, since the parts are INTACT create a pressure block of the air from the falling debris.


Your comment debunks itself... air escaping thru the mass of debris falling on top of it... sorry but mother nature takes the easiest path...the path of least resistance and that is NOT thru the wall of debris crashing down but rather the air is following the path of least resistance which is moving in the direction of the debris flow...down..down down..

How could airflow move upward as debris is falling down...dont you think you would see the debris and dust then shooting up instead of down as the videos show...lol....WOW ignorance at it's best.

So no, you have not provided any evidence to "categorically" show my claim is false... rather you have stated something any engineer (including myself) would find to be laughable.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
...Ok the amount of thermite required to create a cascade of that magnatude would be greater than the actual amount of metal cascading down the side in the picture...
...why does that collapse not start from the TOP DOWN as in the WTC collapse?...


Why would you need more thermate than what we see cascading down, that doesn't make sense? Also maybe you need a better monitor, I can clearly see white smoke on my 21" Trinitron...

Your logic is flawed mate...
A demolition can start from the top or the bottom. The conventional way is to start from the bottom because it lessens the amount of debris falling out of it's footprint. A top down demo will be a lot messier, just like we see with the towers. Whereas as 7 is a more conventional bottom down collapse.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
rather you have stated something any engineer (including myself) would find to be laughable.


Can I ask what type of degree you posses? I have a BS in Civil myself. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by DisabledVet
...Ok the amount of thermite required to create a cascade of that magnatude would be greater than the actual amount of metal cascading down the side in the picture...
...why does that collapse not start from the TOP DOWN as in the WTC collapse?...


Why would you need more thermate than what we see cascading down, that doesn't make sense? Also maybe you need a better monitor, I can clearly see white smoke on my 21" Trinitron...

Your logic is flawed mate...
A demolition can start from the top or the bottom. The conventional way is to start from the bottom because it lessens the amount of debris falling out of it's footprint. A top down demo will be a lot messier, just like we see with the towers. Whereas as 7 is a more conventional bottom down collapse.


You missed my point...I was saying it cant be thermite because the amount of thermite needed to create a cascade of molten metal would be in the hundreds and hundreds of pounds

And further that white smoke in no where near the amount of white smoke that thermite generates..and not even close to the amount of white smoke that the required amount of thermite need to produce a cascade of metal like in the picture would produce... it would virtually block out the entire top section of the WTC with white smoke.

And besides, thermite burns so quickly that to produce a cascade of that magnitude again you would have to have hundreds and hundreds of pounds...thermite burns out quicker than any other acelerant...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by DisabledVet
rather you have stated something any engineer (including myself) would find to be laughable.


Can I ask what type of degree you posses? I have a BS in Civil myself. Thanks.


Why so you can ask to have it "independently reviewed"?

Sorry I defiantly wont take the time to justify myself to you.

I know plenty of folks with degrees whom have no clue of what they are talking about.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Why so defensive? I only asked what type of engineering degree you possesed. Because you said any engineer (including myself). Does that not mean you are an engineer?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Umm No wrong,

Regardless of the size of the hole created in the building by the impact of the plane, the debris falling fell PAST the impact point of the plane and while traveling down creates an air pressure wave in the INTACT PARTS of the building which, since the parts are INTACT create a pressure block of the air from the falling debris.


Your comment debunks itself... air escaping thru the mass of debris falling on top of it... sorry but mother nature takes the easiest path...the path of least resistance and that is NOT thru the wall of debris crashing down but rather the air is following the path of least resistance which is moving in the direction of the debris flow...down..down down..

How could airflow move upward as debris is falling down...dont you think you would see the debris and dust then shooting up instead of down as the videos show...lol....WOW ignorance at it's best.

So no, you have not provided any evidence to "categorically" show my claim is false... rather you have stated something any engineer (including myself) would find to be laughable.


Well, thanks for the ingorance jab, but honestly, if you are an engineer, you need to go back and review your physics 101 my friend.

You're claiming that this "wall of debris" as you label it, is airtight. Which is just plain silly. The debris falling past the impact point, wouldn't be airtight, because is a collection of dust and rock and steal, not one solid concrete mass. I agree that if it were one solid mass, it would cause airpressure below it causing an explosion of air, but that's not what we have. We have a collection of pulverised concrete, stone, steal, and misc office equipment. Hardly anything that one would consider and airtight mass.

To demonstrate this, put a bunch of rocks and sand and pieces of steel into a glass jar. Not seal the jar so its airtight. Now flip the jar over. Did the sand, rocks, and steal fall quickly to the bottom with no air resistance? Or did the glass explode because so much air pressure was built up? Do you see how rediculous your claims are, engineer or no?

As for following the path of least resistance, my point is, the air would have a much easier time "moving up" (which in reality is pretty much staying stationary, not shooting up at high speeds) through the thousands upon thousands of small openings in the falling debris than it would blowing out through the elevator doors and burting through the kinds of glass windows they use in the construction of sky scrapers.

And we do see dust and debris shooting up as the building collapses. Unless you didn't notice the giant cloud of debris and dust forming above the collapse line that's obviously visible in every single video taken from that day.

So I'm sorry, but you're wrong here. You haven't debunked anything.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Why so defensive? I only asked what type of engineering degree you possesed. Because you said any engineer (including myself). Does that not mean you are an engineer?

'
Well according to the logic on this board it means I could be an evil alien from another planet sent here, on the US secret governments request to help them in their evil plot to debunk the real truth that yes, the us government hatched a plan whereby secret people (The would be people with families and children)would be tasked with placing demolition charges on two of the most populated buildings in New York (populated with people whom have families and children..just like the secret forces) in a secret manner so that they would be blown up killing all those people with children too to help bring us into a war on terror.

Hmm... so not one person would feel guilty of being involved in such an act.. why have we never heard from one of those secret people involved?

The thought that there was intentional acts to help kill thousands of people is ridiculous. You all seem to forget it takes people just like you and me to carry out these plans....it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plan of this magnitude to occur without at least one person involved in the supposed sabotages coming forward.

Misdirected skepticism at its worst.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plan of this magnitude to occur without at least one person involved in the supposed sabotages coming forward.


Never say impossible. The type of people who would be contracted to do this type of work wouldn't be all fluffy bunny like you and me. They'd already be hardened criminals. Really think they are going to rat each other out?


Misdirected skepticism at its worst.



Misdirected absolutism at its best.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Ahhh yes... hardened criminals... they are known to be so honorable that they would never rat on one another.... LOL

Wow... this is pure entertainment at it's best.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 29/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
OK guys, can the attitude and discuss this civilly please.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Ahhh yes... hardened criminals... they are known to be so honorable that they would never rat on one another.... LOL


Yes, because like the mob, if you rat, you're dead. I can't see why this is a hard concept for people.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
the jet by overpressure concept is rather strange, tbh.

thinking of the buildings as giant pistons is wierd in itself, what amazes me most is that all of them are pretty much the same size. if air is gradually compressed and for some odd reason forced to take its path through a dozen selected windows distributed over 50 floors, wouldn't they a) keep blowing debris after the initial blowouts b) shouldn't pressure increase as more and more of the building collapses, thereby increasing the extent of these 'jets' on the lower floors? and c) why would these blowouts appear strictly top-down if they are all the same size, indicating the same pressure? they should happen roughly at the same time, certainly not in a particular order, 'pressure wave' or not. btw. the speed of sound is ~1100 feet/second isn't it...



[edit on 29.6.2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
"wouldn't they a) keep blowing debris after the initial blowouts"

Ah hah. Another excellent observation. One that eluded me.

I do have one more thing to say about "air" pushing out all the debris though.
The buildings (towers) were 200 by 200. The debris shot out from every side. So, only one quarter of the air space could be responsible for one side shooting out...just 50 feet of air (minus whatever airspace one quarter of the core took) to launch heavy beams 200 feet at least, 650 or so if WTC 7 was hit. How could so little air, which is much LESS dense than steel beams, propel those beams over 4 times farther than the amount of air available? There isn't enough force with just air to accomplish this feat.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Also, nobody has addressed the OP's point that the air below the collapse point shouldn't be dust filled, it should be clear air.

So, to reiterate, on 9/11, concrete acted like flour, jet fuel acted like thermite, aluminium acted like steel and steel acted like rubber. The US Govt. acted like reasonable people and just about everything sounded like an explosion, even if it wasn't!

I think I understand now. I'd just like to know why things had to go back to normal after 5pm the same day. I have some steel to cut and it would be great if I could use a cigarette lighter and a heavy book.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Freefall speeds indicate no resistance.

Massive pulverization indicates massive resistance, else, what would have pulverized everything other than things smashing together in a gravity only collapse?

How can indications of no resistance and massive resistance occur simultaneously if there were no explosives?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Ahhh yes... hardened criminals... they are known to be so honorable that they would never rat on one another.... LOL

Wow... this is pure entertainment at it's best.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 29/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]


How about rebutting the facts in this thread that numerous people have posted including myself instead of making sarcastic remarks that have no basis for a debate.

Please in future if you have nothing in the form of a mature debate to post, then don't post it at all.

BeZerK



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join