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.

 

NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh for peats sake, have you looked at the buildings structure? Do you understand how it was constructed? Erm go look at it.



I take that as a: "No I cannot back that up"




What do you mean for how long? Why would it collapse at all if the collapse was caused by falling (pancaking) floors?


It wasn't designed to stand alone-- (the core) So why exactly would we expect it to stand for ANY length of time at all?



Yes a small section of the core remained standing, until it turned to dust!


dustified from thermite spewing spacebeams... no doubt..




It would help you guys immensely to study a little simple physics and then study the WTC structure and put them together...
Right now you are all trying to argue points you get from websites without really knowing the physics behind what you're trying to claim.


Yawn, Same tired, "YooZ Just Dont Undastand!" I_Mean_Really!

I understand alright..Your physics say that the towers were impervious to the explosive impact of a multi-ton aircraft traveling at a very high rate of speed. -- And steel that was impervious to uncontrolled fully involed fire that was over several floors.

YET The towers were very vulnerable to the explosive impact of detonation charges secretly planted.-- And steel that was very vulnerable to a newfangled side cuttin' thermate.

Yeah, one scenario is well documented...The other, not so much.



mod edit: fixed bbcode

[edit on 16-11-2007 by chissler -- thanks,TD]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Taxi-Driver]




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok ~

Can you please provide us with a Physics lesson? You perseverate the same post over and over on every thread no matter the topic. You post the same paragrah or two about "simple physics" yet you never describe HOW it cant work.

Please enlighten us to what knowledge YOU have gained that shows that the collapse could not have happened that way 99.99% of all professional engineers across the planet agree to.


Anok ,
If you could please look over the following articles written by engineers and other professional, then let us all know what is wrong with them.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
www.tms.org...

www.public-action.com...

I have others too if you'd like. Some are even peer reviewed.

Please let me know if your interested.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes the facade had to go somewhere. That somewhere, when only gravity is acting on the steel, is straight down. Not laterally 600ft, or embedded in other buildings.


But it wasn't only gravity acting on the lightweight facade pieces, it was air resistance for one, wind for two which was also aided by the whoosh of air caused by the falling mass of the tower. That's why so many of them fluttered in the air while the massive steel pieces came crashing down.




In a gravity fed collapse there shouldn't be anything flying out of anywhere when it weighs in the tons.


So when mass collides with mass there should be no effect???? That's mind boggling. Next time I shoot pool I must figure this out, why in the world should the rack break apart so violently from just the mass of the cue ball hitting it??? Magic perhaps?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I wonder if he got permission from the Mythbusters to use the video of the exploding cement truck. That was one of their best episodes. The myth was weak but the explosion was awesome. I had just bought a 50 inch DLP tv and one of the first things I watched was that explosion. I nearly cried as the picture was awesome. My son understood but my wife never got it. But then again she watches the regular weather channel when we have the HD version.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How did those massive columns fail at the same time straight down from office fires? How is that even possible?



It most likely isn't possible, and given that scenario didn't happen it's pointless to ask.

I wonder why so many 9/11 Deniers seem to think that if they omit the damage from the jet smashing into the building and the concussive force of the massive explosion and the damage it caused to the infrastructure, that people just won't notice, and go "wow, man, yah, like how is that possible? I just don't understand, man...it's an inside job for sure."



If their case was really so strong, would they not feel the need to deceive?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
voice of reason says: we ALL want the truth... keep it civil or i will invoke the spirit of Hitler on you



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vance
I know what took place that day because I watched it happen live.


So in other words you believe everything you see and hear on TV, even though there is no actual evidence and official reports to support the media story?



Originally posted by Soloist
I wonder why so many 9/11 Deniers seem to think that if they omit the damage from the jet smashing into the building and the concussive force of the massive explosion and the damage it caused to the infrastructure, that people just won't notice, and go "wow, man, yah, like how is that possible? I just don't understand, man...it's an inside job for sure."


Well maybe its because NIST, FEMA, and other reports have stated that the buildings witstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

So please do some research and leave the planes out as a reason for the towers to collapse.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well maybe its because NIST, FEMA, and other reports have stated that the buildings witstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.


So what? Planes still hit the buildings, saying they fell because of only "office fires" is a lie. And would have kept standing ...except for??? The aftermath of the damage they caused AND the fires.

The fires alone would not have collapsed the building, nor would the planes as you state.

But the fact that BOTH happened, yes both (YOU do some research if you can't understand that) plane impact and fire is what brought them down.

You can't freaking quote only one as being the cause, it's a blatant lie and I ask you now to STOP IT.



So please do some research and leave the planes out as a reason for the towers to collapse.


No, I won't leave them out, not ever. You would rather try and erase that FACT in and of itself shows the fear of telling the whole truth.

People died in those planes, and I will never forget that, nor will I sit quiet while people lie and omit it and try to pass it off as reality.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well maybe its because NIST, FEMA, and other reports have stated that the buildings witstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.


In your estimation, Ultima. Do you think that the planes did: No damage? A lil' damage? A Butt-load of damage?

Hypothetically, had the resulting fires from the aircraft impact not happened, do you feel the WTC's would just need a quick patch job before returning to business as usual?

Hypothetically, had the aircraft been say...Japanese Zeros (single propeller aircraft) instead of multi engine Jetliners about 20 times larger.. Do you think the Zeros would have done as much damage as the larger, heavier, faster 767?


If aircraft flying at high speeds are so mundane and impotent, why would these WWII sailors even bother shooting at them? Why would 30 U.S.N. ships be destroyed by these "minimal" threats? Did the USA make WWII battleships out of cheap aluminum or flimsy balsa wood? Or was it Steel? Did you get the serial number on that steel? Have you reached your breaking point? Did you jump ship?

Another Video of the damage that a little, slow, propeller-plane can cause on larger, steel clad structures.






[edit on 16-11-2007 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the writeup! I may do another version without the snarky remarks. I guess I was in a bad mood when I made that.

Interesting that the ATS conspiracists are throwing their hands in the air and saying, "Who says explosives were used?"

Er, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones, Gordon Ross, Frank Legge, William Rodriguez, Webster Tarpley, Eric Hufschmid, Kevin Barrett, Torin Wolf, Crockett Grabbe, Craig Furlong, Tony Szamboti, 911truth.org, NY911truth, WeAreChange, Loose Change (all versions), 9/11 Mysteries, Improbable Collapse, 9/11 Revisited, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 Why the Official Story Can't be True, dozens of YouTube videos, hundreds of websites, dozens of people who have posted here, and every conspiracist who cites witness accounts of explosions.

Richard Gage even stated this week that explosives were used, but they weren't meant to be heard, so not too much was used, and the balance was made up by thermate, except the explosions were heard by many people, proving controlled demolitions, just controlled demolitions that didn't go exactly as planned. Because they were heard.

Ya can't make this stuff up.

Many of these people claim that not only were explosives used, but so MUCH explosives were used that giant steel sections were tossed around the site and nearly all the concrete was pulverized. That's nonsense, and that's the point of my video.

Don't support these incompetents, frauds, and morons.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Mark Roberts]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Mark Roberts]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
For some reason there is a lot of people here who seem to assume the total global collapse and release of energy is possible from a few office fire and was somehow expected.

That is your main mistake and the reason what I keep repeating is not making sense to you.

It has been PROVED over and over that the fires could not have possibly cause the global failure we saw. It's been PROVED, and even NIST agree, that the planes impact had no effect on the collapse. But you all want to ignore what's right in front of your eyes and to keep ignoring the physics that contradict the the scenario you want to be the truth.

You want to argue stupid points that have no relevance to the big picture, that's why I keep repeating the same thing. There is nothing left to argue.

You don't have to believe me and I don't have to back it up, it's my opinion based on common sense and some engineering experience. But best of all it's stuff you can check FOR YOURSELF. But for some reason you want to ignore the simple facts and swamp discussion with complicated irrelevance.

Until one of you can answer the question I keep repeating then I'll keep repeating them. And I don't mean a link to an irrelevant internet article you yourself don't even understand. I want YOU to explain it...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
reply to post by Griff
 



And my opinion is -



Research some and see how difficult it is, if not downright impossible to get thermite to cut horizontally......


Really? Laugh all you want. Here ya go.

www.youtube.com...

Looks pretty horizontal to me.

I love it when people just laugh away things that they haven't even researched themselves.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Good video.

The steel from the site was taken in a manner to get it out of possible inspection from independent sources. Had the area been treated as a crime seen, once the rescue part was completed, then there would not be this conspiricy therory.

The plain facts, in my opinion are that the material was handled in a way as to make a true scientific examination of the buildings remains near impossible. Even if you can site a piece or two that was examined, the case can be made that those were hand chosen to prevent random selection that could show conclusions not desired by the perpertrators.

There is no explanation I have found that can explain how the second tower hit fell first. Upon examination of the impacts, one sees the first tower took a direct hit and that its fuel had much better coverage than the second tower. The second tower's plane released the bulk of its fuel in a fireball on the external side of the building, so that its HEATING factor so often thrown up, went out the building.

In my opinion the towers could not have come down in the manner they did without some type of assistance. It seems that out of all the structural members in the towers, some points would have resisted the downward force more than others. This would have made the towers slow down on decent and to most likely lean one way or the other due to resistance from reinforced structural members.

There will probably never be conclusive evidence oneway or the other.

So the differences in beliefs will always continue here and elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 


I f you think that sounds like explosions, then I have nothing left to say. There is no reasoning with the closed minded.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



Why don't you actually post the dates of those studies?

www.fema.gov...

Read D.5 of this report. It says that 17 engineers were on site (wow...a wopping 17). They identified 150 pieces of steel and sent 41 to NIST for analysis. Again....wow a wopping 150 out of millions?

Let's be truthful here CO and not do what you complain about often. Which is only quoting snippets to reinforce your side.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The facade had to go somewhere. I think that there was an effective pressure inside because the building effectively was being compressed from top, so the walls were flying out to the sides. Some pieces of innder structure were probably also shooting out. Once the fasteners are gone, there is indeed little to hold all the floor plated in place, don't you agree?


Wouldn't this so called pressure be eleviated by the breaking of the facade glass?

No, I don't agree.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Right now you are all trying to argue points you get from websites without really knowing the physics behind what you're trying to claim.


Exactly.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
It wasn't designed to stand alone-- (the core) So why exactly would we expect it to stand for ANY length of time at all?


And a cardboard tube is not designed to stand on end. Guess what. It still does. Go figure.



dustified from thermite spewing spacebeams... no doubt..


If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to make fun with blanket statements that make no sense, then so be it.


Yawn, Same tired, "YooZ Just Dont Undastand!" I_Mean_Really!


Yawn...explain it then...sigh.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Anok ,
If you could please look over the following articles written by engineers and other professional, then let us all know what is wrong with them.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
www.tms.org...


Yes, let's look at what Thomas Eager has to say.



Notice something missing in that image?


I have others too if you'd like. Some are even peer reviewed.


Yes, please provide ONE peer reviewed report that used the structural drawings to come up with their calculations. NOT guesses. Actual calculations. Thanks.


Please let me know if your interested.


Yes.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
For some reason there is a lot of people here who seem to assume the total global collapse and release of energy is possible from a few office fire and was somehow expected.


I have seen no one say a "few office fires" can take down the towers, would you kindly post those erroneous claims?




It's been PROVED, and even NIST agree, that the planes impact had no effect on the collapse.



Well that's like saying the iceberg the Titanic hit didn't have an effect on it sinking, that it was all the water rushing into the hole that put her down.

Telling part of the story is deceptive, period.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join