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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:03 AM
link   
What if osoma did order the attacks?
What if the plane did break up some beam's and the fire softened the metal causing collapse.
What if there was no molten metal just hot coals?
What if everything was a terrorist attack?
Can anybody really prove that isnt the case?

All the people really died, Bush was really dumbfounded, plane really hit pentagon. Osoma still alive planning next attack. Its possible.

Just thinking here. I used to really believe the conspiracy but honestly I wonder sometimes. I guess I need to be reconvinced.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
The air rushing out from the collapse is whats causing the debris to feather outward.

I'd buy that if it weren't taking place sporadically, what, forty some odd stories below the collapsing debris field.

Sorry, but IMO, those absolutely are demolition squibs unless there were special conduits built in the building to allow this compressed air to vault out in specific locations like that. The compressoin of that air was so forceful it blew out of a specific location forty stories below the collapse rather than just blowing up through the dust, or out of the floors immediately below the collapse? Forty stories of concrete verses atomized dust? Path of least resistance, it's kind of a law.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
.....rather than just blowing up through the dust, or out of the floors immediately below the collapse? Forty stories of concrete verses atomized dust? Path of least resistance, it's kind of a law.


Maybe just maybe that was were the elevator door was opened, then the mega blast of energy preceding the collaspse found that opening as an exit blowing out the tower windows.

That would explain a window here and a window there being blown out like a squib. That was were the elevator doors were open.


edit: the blast of energy had to be traveling down the elevator cavity ahead of the collapse and its going to seek the least resistance which would be an open elevator door.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by earth2]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Maybe just maybe....

And maybe, just maybe, they are demolition squibs as part of false flag operation to justify a military campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq to secure energy resources to maintain the largest and most powerful empire in the modern world.
Do you guys really think our elected representatives are above that level of planning and criminal intent? Maybe they are (snicker), but the intelligence community and their less than savory international counterparts sure as hell aren't, they do this kind of thing in other countries damned near daily.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

And maybe, just maybe, they are demolition squibs as part of false flag operation to justify a military campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq to secure energy resources to maintain the largest and most powerful empire in the modern world.
Do you guys really think our elected representatives are above that level of planning and criminal intent? Maybe they are (snicker), but the intelligence community and their less than savory international counterparts sure as hell aren't, they do this kind of thing in other countries damned near daily.


I agree, but the fact is what is being shown for proof isnt enough to prove. I think we need to stay opened minded and think about the possibility it might have been an open elevator door until 100% proof is brought forth it was demolition, that would be the logical approach.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Yes staying open minded is critical, but laws of physics aren't so open minded. In this case, in your mind, what would be the path of least resistance for the compressed air, up through a uncohesive dust cloud, or down and out through an elevator shaft and door then through concrete walls on multiple levels forty or so floors below the collapse? Elevator door was open so it burst out of the sides of the building... That's not being open minded, it's being entirely speculative outside of the bounds of reasonable involved processes.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I dont believe the compressed air had to travel through concrete walls to exit a glass window when it left the elevator door. All that was there was office space. Thats just flimsy walls. Concrete walls????
And yes an open air area is the least resistant. Why would traveling through a collapse be less resistant?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Sorry, but IMO, those absolutely are demolition squibs unless there were special conduits built in the building to allow this compressed air to vault out in specific locations like that. The compressoin of that air was so forceful it blew out of a specific location forty stories below the collapse rather than just blowing up through the dust, or out of the floors immediately below the collapse?


OK, if these are demolition squibs, why are they in those places? If they were all around the tower I could understand it, but in such small areas? The whole the plane made was not sufficient for it to collapse for nearly an hour, so what is that tiny explosion going to do? The structure is vast, all a tiny explosion there would do is sever one column out of about 60 on that side, and we know from earlier on it can stand with most of them on a side knocked out.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Because dust and debris is inherently going to be less dense than an intact building. If it were compressed air, it would follow the path of least resistance, up and out through the dust, not down 40 floors and through intact structure. Squish a can of crazy string towards the top with some bolt cutters, does the string burst out of the top where you mangled the can, or does it come out at random spots towards the bottom where there's no damge to the can? It's simple physics.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
OK, if these are demolition squibs, why are they in those places?


You are seeing explosives going off out of sequence. The other explosive squibs are hidden under the dust and debris as the explosives are going off just under the collapse wave, which is pretty obvious for it to have collapse the way it did, top down.

Nothing unusual about this in demolitions, some of the explosives often go off out of sequence.

Here is a demolition, notice squibs low down the building just like you're seeing on the towers




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   
I think im jumping track for now on the squib thing. I have seen demolition and they have a lot more squibs in critical locations. There are only a half a dozen or less on this gigantic tower, just doesnt make sense. And they are scattered in weird random areas, kinda like were doors could be open.
I really used to think it was demo but I have changed my mind, if it was demo there would be no question.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by earth2]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
The whole the plane made was not sufficient for it to collapse for nearly an hour, so what is that tiny explosion going to do?

Cut a support beam. Do you know what squibs are? I'm not trying to be facetious, but if you don't, squibs are placed explosive ('that tiny little explosion') to cut or blow out support structures. No that tiny little explosion isn't going to do anything, but a number of well placed tiny little explosions is what we call a controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by apex
The whole the plane made was not sufficient for it to collapse for nearly an hour, so what is that tiny explosion going to do?

Cut a support beam. Do you know what squibs are? I'm not trying to be facetious, but if you don't, squibs are placed explosive ('that tiny little explosion') to cut or blow out support structures. No that tiny little explosion isn't going to do anything, but a number of well placed tiny little explosions is what we call a controlled demolition.


Don't worry, I know what one is, but the entire facade of the WTC was the support structure, as well as the core, so I can't see why something that destroys one beam is going to be useful even destroying all of them, when the top is already coming down fast and likely to crush everything in its path anyway.

Edit for a slightly better point.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by apex]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Thank god Anok is here, I can go to bed finally without letting these skeptics have their way with this thread. LOL Give em hell Anok, I've got to get off this thing before I fall asleep.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
LOL Twitchy...


Originally posted by earth2
I have seen demolition and they have a lot more squibs in critical locations.


Did you look at the picture in my post above? Notice you see only two squibs?
Are going to try and tell us that's compressed air too?

And again the squibs are hidden under the collapse wave, the ones you can see are going off too soon, out of sequence. It happens in controlled demos, as the pic I posted shows quite clearly don't you think?

[edit on 28/6/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
There should be an organized line of squibs in a row or something, thats how demo works. Not a squib here and then one way over there.
And wouldnt a giant collapse make squibs? I would think so thats a lot of pressure coming down. Kinda like a big boat sinking, ever see windows and doors blow out when they are sinking? That from pressure.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Did you look at the picture in my post above? Notice you see only two squibs?
Are going to try and tell us that's compressed air too?

And again the squibs are hidden under the collapse wave, the ones you can see are going off too soon, out of sequence. It happens in controlled demos, as the pic I posted shows quite clearly don't you think?

[edit on 28/6/2007 by ANOK]


Yea I looked at your pic of controlled demo it has about 7 or 8 squibs.
But guess what? They are all on the same floor, thats because its controlled demo.


edit: and yea im trying to tell you its compressed air

[edit on 28-6-2007 by earth2]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Don't worry, I know what one is, but the entire facade of the WTC was the support structure, as well as the core, so I can't see why something that destroys one beam is going to be useful even destroying all of them, when the top is already coming down fast and likely to crush everything in its path anyway.


The core held 80% of the vertical load, the exterior steel mesh held the other 20% and controlled the lateral loads from winds, and earthquakes, and aircraft impacts and stuff. It's a very well designed building, far stronger than any other type of steel structure.
The external mesh has the unique property of being able to lose huge amounts of it's structure, and still hold up because it's like a piece of netting. The undamaged portions take up the load and very well with this type of design.
It's a common design used in lots of different applications where a lot of strength and flexibility is needed. The key is flexibility, the property that allows the structure to move, as in an impact, but return back to its original position and maintain its integrity.

There is no way on Gods green earth the building is going to collapse itself to it's foundations with no resistance at all from lower undamaged columns, fasteners, welds etc. The very design of its structure makes this impossible, without the structure being compromised equally and throughout the whole building.

How does the top crush what it's designed to sit on? There top didn't drop on the bottom section, how could it? Were whole chunks of the columns all equally compromised at the same time by anything? According to the official story no they weren't. Supposedly
the columns were heated up by the fire, in under an hour, enough for them to lose their ability to hold the load. Now if this was actually how it happened you wouldn’t see a sudden global collapse that keeps going at an increasing rate till it had no more building left to collapse. No, you would see the slow bending of columns as they became elastic, steel doesn’t snap when it’s hot it bends, ever done any forging in school?

But of course common sense and a bit of basic physics and metal work knowledge would tell you an hours worth of office fires is not going cause massive columns of steel to get hot enough to cause them to fail. Go visit a foundry and you’ll see the temps they have to use to get the steel to become pliable are far higher than the temps the steel needs to get to. If you put a 600 degree flame on a piece of steel, that steel will not reach 600 degrees, it’s simple physics. If you don’t believe me, go educate yourself.

The columns well bellow the heated area would still be cool, as the heat was only concentrated on a few floors above the collapse zones. So these columns would subject massive resistance to the top which would, as the south tower started to do, take the path of least resistance and topple rather than fall vertically.

These are laws of physics that apply to any structure regardless of its construction.

The only conclusion is some other energy must have been acting on the towers to have collapsed the way they did. You can’t prove this to be wrong, go ahead and try, and pls no hollywood physics.

What that energy was we can only guess. But with that conclusion, and obvious squibs that are seen, go do the maths.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
Yea I looked at your pic of controlled demo it has about 7 or 8 squibs.
But guess what? They are all on the same floor, thats because its controlled demo.
edit: and yea im trying to tell you its compressed air


You're are not listening. One more time, the squibs you see in the tower and the TWO in the pic of the building being demolished are explosives going off out of sequence. It's just coincidence that they are on the same floor, two explosives do not bring a building down. And as one of you said why would they be so low down? Because they went off out of sequence.

The reason you don't see lines of squibs around the towers is because they are hidden by the debris and dust of the collapse wave. Think about this, how would you rig a building to fall from the top down? You would set explosives to go off starting at the next to top floor, or as in the towers the floor bellow the impact point of the aircraft, so that you take out each floor in sequence down the building, and the collapse wave will be just above each floor that is being taken out. So the explosive squibs will be hidden by the dust and debris as the building falls. Simple. A very effective way of hiding a controlled demo from those that do not understand the physics involved.

Edited to add image...Here is the explosives out of sequence I'm talking about...


[edit on 28/6/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
So you are saying there are squibs there we just cant see them. How is that any kind of evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join