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.

 

9/11 Rare-New Evidence Of Controlled Demo?

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
good point, well made. so lets update ourselves, i think by now we have established that it wasnt the plane that did it. the pancake theory doesnt work because the maximum time for the collapse was, was it 15 seconds you said?, if i can get my grubby mits on it somewhere i'v seen a video with a counter on it. perhaps that will help.

to be honest the only question in my mind at the moment is "are the government so greedy that they can justify the horrific murder of 3000 people for profit?"

[edit] no steel "building" has collapsed due to fires [/edit]

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ZGhorus]




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Who are you quoting? We most certainly can't establish that it wasn't planes. That's such a ridiculously pretentious statement it hurts.

*EDIT: There's no need to quote the entire preceding post*

[edit on 4-8-2007 by dbates]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
why is it rediculous? the planes hit, the buildings didnt fall down. they would have at least wobbled a bit. by disproving the pancake theory, you disprove the fact that the fires and planes collapsed the building. the pancake theory is in fact...false, sorry.

the buildings fell far to fast and there would have been approximately 440ft of broken floors piled around 1000ft of metal support structure assuming of course that the momentum was enough to knock the floors away from the supports that hadnt been damaged by the fire.

[edit] i was quoting my own mind, sorry.[/edit

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ZGhorus]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorus

[edit] no steel "building" has collapsed due to fires [/edit]

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ZGhorus]


So that story doesn't work for you because it wasn't a skyscraper. Okay, well no problem. You're right, other than the WTC towers, no other skyscraper has ever burned and collapsed from being hit by a 767. So I guess you win?
Oh wait, that has never happened before or since, so we really can't compare it to anything.

There are other examples of buildings with steel structures collapsing... heres a few:
1967 steel roof collapses. www.chipublib.org...

1997, steel building collapses: www.interfire.org...

There's more on this page (thats where I got the two links above) as well as some refutations for other common stupid arguments. This page was written in result to stupid conspiracy crap Roise O. spouted on the View a while back. www.debunking911.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
interesting read that. but only the roof collapsed not the building, same with the other one. i discounted the bridge because of the obvious differences between bridge construction and building construction. if we removed a section of the core from a building, chances are the rest of it will compensate for it, remove a section of a bridge and it goes pop.

i read the bit about steel buckling under the heat and paid particular attention to it, it is duely noted.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Here is a higher quality video of the thread topic.

www.webfives.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
Here is a higher quality video of the thread topic.

www.webfives.com...
No one has yet to explained the flashes of light 80 stories below

Excellent video.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZGhorusif we removed a section of the core from a building, chances are the rest of it will compensate for it, remove a section of a bridge and it goes pop.


Well, color me surprised. I had no idea you were a structural engineer.


Originally posted by OutoftheSky

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
Here is a higher quality video of the thread topic.

www.webfives.com...
No one has yet to explained the flashes of light 80 stories below

Excellent video.

you seriously think those tiny little pufts of dust are evidence of hundreds of tons of explosives within one of the largest buildings in the world which were somehow magically placed there in several hours by people who have never talked to the public about it?

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
oops


[edit on 4-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I am sure the planning for 911 took years. With Marvin Bush (brother) owning and running the security firm for the WTC and Dulles airport... bla bla bla....

www.webfives.com...
In this video its not little dust puffs, its actual explosive white flashes of light 80 stories below inpact zone in sequence crossing diagonally.

Have you seen the video? www.webfives.com...
Or are you chosing replies from a old generic bag of counter arguments?

When I made the video i made sure that I didnt include easily debatable air pressure squibs. I stuck basically to demolition flashes seen many stories below commenly used in demolitions to steer the collapse to it's desired resting place, in this case the WTC courtyard.

www.webfives.com...

If you have a comment on a particular sequence of the video, state the time of the film to be discussed.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   


you seriously think those tiny little pufts of dust are evidence of hundreds of tons of explosives within one of the largest buildings in the world which were somehow magically placed there in several hours by people who have never talked to the public about it?


Tiny little puffs? I think you need to picture those small puffs to the magnitude of those building to realize that those small puffs are indeed not that small.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Can someone explain to me what is happening at 1:11 of this movie
www.metacafe.com...

The explanition to this will lead to the official story being thrown out.


I will pre-answer the predictable questions.

Answer: "well then how did the core columns break 60 stories below?"



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
What if Controlled Demolition was designed into every extreme high-rise to interrupt possible collapse into the lateral environment?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Does anyone know the initial tonnage and architectural connections from point A through Z or 1 to 110 or-so?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by podnus
What if Controlled Demolition was designed into every extreme high-rise to interrupt possible collapse into the lateral environment?


IF that were the case then who hit the buttons on 9/11, and who upgraded them and maintained them?

[edit on 5-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutoftheSky

Originally posted by podnus
What if Controlled Demolition was designed into every extreme high-rise to interrupt possible collapse into the lateral environment?


IF that were the case then who hit the buttons on 9/11, and who upgraded them and maintained them?

[edit on 5-8-2007 by OutoftheSky]


Hmmm?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
So we continue.

IF the truth is really desired then there is no reason that the govt. does not allow a independent investigation. Give any remaining pieces to independent labs for analysis (though most if not all is now gone). And use any and all means to discover the actual cause of the collapse of all the buildings involved.

UNLESS the truth would cause a massive revolution against the govt or individuals in the govt.

If there is nothing to hide, and only the truth sought, why would the government, those that support the government theory, or those that are not sure of what happened have any objection to a real scientific investigation, with nothing left off the route that could determine the true cause?

This applies to those that KNOW the towers and bldg 7 fell from the planes. Why argue when a real investigation will only prove your theory?

I for one will have no problem saying" Well Ill be damned, them planes did cause the towers to fall, I was totally wrong on thinking otherwise"

But first the real investigation has to be done and common sense explanations given to make the investigations credible. Not some hyped govt instigated phony literature.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
So we continue.

IF the truth is really desired then there is no reason that the govt. does not allow a independent investigation. Give any remaining pieces to independent labs for analysis (though most if not all is now gone). And use any and all means to discover the actual cause of the collapse of all the buildings involved.

UNLESS the truth would cause a massive revolution against the govt or individuals in the govt.

If there is nothing to hide, and only the truth sought, why would the government, those that support the government theory, or those that are not sure of what happened have any objection to a real scientific investigation, with nothing left off the route that could determine the true cause?

This applies to those that KNOW the towers and bldg 7 fell from the planes. Why argue when a real investigation will only prove your theory?

I for one will have no problem saying" Well Ill be damned, them planes did cause the towers to fall, I was totally wrong on thinking otherwise"

But first the real investigation has to be done and common sense explanations given to make the investigations credible. Not some hyped govt instigated phony literature.


A very good analogy of this same situation is, why can't we just put cameras everywhere? If you're not doing anything illegal why do you care.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I know I'm stepping into a quagmire here and hopefully I won't lose my boot but I wanted to add a few of my thoughts that seem to not have been mentioned. I'll try to make it as easy to read as I can

Free Fall Collapse:

I think one aspect that no one else really thinks about is the shear number of floors that were present in the WTC towers. When we think of a building it's natural to think of a building maybe 20-50 stories high which leaves a significant ratio of empty space to structural material. In other words, the idea of a 10 story building pancaking and collapsing into itself as in a CD is pretty easily understandable.

However, both WTC towers were almost 2,000 feet high and contained 110 floors. (not sure if that includes the sub levels, which were extensive). The idea that a 110 story building will collapse into it's own footprint due to upper levels falling down onto subsequent levels in about 10 seconds is pure science fiction.

Debris:

Consider the shear amount of stuff that made up those two building. Structural steel, concrete, glass, wiring, elevators, escalators, desks, cabinets, computers, people. As someone who had spent a good deal of time in the WTC and WFC I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of people don't really have a good understanding of the total gargantuan aspect of the entire complex. My question is, where did it all go?

As we see the tower collapse we see them be completely pulverized into dust, just completely vaporized. This would also tend to lean away from the "Pancake Theory" since the pulverization and vaporization of the WTC material would thus decrease the weight of the load bearing down on subsequent floors. If we are to assume that the increase in the amount of particulate matter being ejected and cascading down is equally inverse to the amount of solid material we must assume that the increase of particulate matter is directly related to the decrease in overall weight and force of the collapsing material.

Diagonally Cut Beam:

I'm no expert but I have some experience in metal work being a certified welder. The thickness on that beam is HUGE! Much bigger than anything I've worked with. I've even watched people take a DOT structural steel test and the plates they use are only about 2 inches thick but even that takes a few passes with a torch to cut.

I think a lot of people don't realize what goes into cutting steel. Steel has a melting point like any other material and the cutting of thick steel using an Oxy/Acetaline system involves the heating of the metal to almost melting and then injecting a generous amount of pressurized oxygen through the torch tip which both increases the heat directed towards the steel and blows away any molten metal.

I can tell you from experience that cutting that beam with an Oxy torch would've taken FOR EV ER and more than a few passes. The heat on the torch would have to have beam extreme, so much so I wouldn't want to do it.

Also, steel is a bit of a misnomer as there are many types of steel just as there are many types of aluminum. The type of steel is dependent upon the ratio of various alloys added to the original steel mixture. These different types of steel can vary in density, heat resistance, and pressure tolerances. Good steel, and a good weld too, should be able to be bent from a flat, straight piece of metal to a U shape with no visible cracks, indentation or "bubbles".

Also, I dunno how you would drag both an Oxy tank and an Acetaline tank through all that rubble, have you ever tried to pick one up?

Playing devil's advocate though, they do make torches that are extra long, they're called lances and are used for cutting steel overhead or in any other position that would require an extended reach. They can get quite long and I've seen pictures of guys using them, I believe I saw a picture of some guys using them at ground zero last time I went to the welding supply store but I could be wrong on the location (setting) of the photo.


All I can say is that I don't believe a word of the official story. I used to, I'm a red blooded American to the core (and a native Manhattenite), I love this country, but truth is truth. I denied it, I even surfed ATS and avoided all 911 discussions. One day, I don't remember why, I started doing research into it
and I can't deny what I see with my own two eyes. I don't have all the answers but I know the "Official Story" doesn't either.

Most people simply think we're crazy because they've been brainwashed into thinking that doing legitimate research on the biggest event since Pearl Harbor is somehow un-American and if you start acting un-American then you will be shipped off.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Free Fall Collapse:


Well, first off it wasn't free fall speed. It's very obvious from any video that chunks of the tower are falling at a much faster rate then the building it self.

Second, most conspiracy theorists will claim a shorter time to fall, I favor the more accepted 15 seconds(well more accepted among non conspiracy theorists).

Third, and my last point, unless there is something further you want to argue, is that there is no way explosives could have even made it fall at free fall speeds had it fallen at free fall speeds. So that's a pretty null argument. It obviously didn't drop at free fall speeds. It's not like the collapse came to a complete stop before continueing at every floor level.


Debris:

I, once again, rely on science to prove my point.


We already know that Hoffman's article treats 4 x 10^11 joules as the amount of energy available for release in the towers from a gravitational collapse. And according to his conclusion this is less than one tenth of the energy required. Therefore we need to multiply this figure by at least 9, giving 36 x 10^11 joules of energy required from some other source. (And as Hoffman keeps saying the effects need more than ten times this amount of energy, and he’s being conservative, then this is an absolute minimum).

Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( www.answers.com... ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.



Diagonally Cut Beam:


This last part, I'm not so sure what you're trying to prove. Something about after the collapse? Can you explain a bit further.




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join