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.

 

Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Damocles
so i fully support all of griffs statements re: explosives, i just disagree on the end result and to me, it still wasnt a cd.


This is why I think you're a standup guy Damocles.


We can agree to disagree but still come to the middle to discuss. Wish more debates were like that. Cheers.


kudos to both you dudes for decorum in the heat of battle.
if the whole webwide debate could proceed with such stellar spock-like reasoning, the debate might be over by now(and those mihop, lihop, muslim bros.hood, secret terror cells would be dead or in jail, the constitution would be restored, the patriot act anulled, etc.).

it was a CD!!!





posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
kudos to both you dudes for decorum in the heat of battle.
if the whole webwide debate could proceed with such stellar spock-like reasoning, the debate might be over by now(and those mihop, lihop, muslim bros.hood, secret terror cells would be dead or in jail, the constitution would be restored, the patriot act anulled, etc.).

thanks





it was a CD!!!




oh...so close
jk


i really do think ima change part of my sig to reflect marvin the martian "wheres the kaboom? there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!"

edit to add: in retrospect i figured i should clarify. i do sincerely appreciate BB's thoughts, and the rest of my post was just an attempt to ad a bit of levity to a serious topic. we all take this very seriously at times and sometimes, ya just need to laugh at each other, and yourselves. we were all affected by the events of 911 in some way and while the scars may never heal for some, laughter is the best medicine


[edit on 12-12-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   





The Main agenda is to keep any fingers pointing to Israel or flight 93 by means of distraction of topic such as mentioning the pentagon.

great vids.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gen.disaray
but i was unfortuneate enough to see that bad , puss filled boil called " Loose Change " and i had to listen to that winny little dylan avery go on for 30minutes about every fire in the world never made a building collaspe.


Hmm. I wonder if the new rules apply here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
First time poster in 9/11 conspiracies.

If those were explosions, then why did they continue even after the building had collapsed? We can CLEARLY see flashes in the bright blue sky when the buildings are going down. And we can clearly see flashes in the smoke when the building is way down into the ground. Explosions? I think not. It doesn't take a scientest to see that.



-Jimmy-



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by albie
Surely to take the main core out it would require some force.


Bingo! And according to the official story gravity was that force, pulling the top of the building through thousands of tons of undamaged construction steel as if it wasn't even there. Yes gravity was some force that day...


So really does it matter whether we see explosive flashes in video's? Does it matter if there is no physical proof of 'explosives'? When the physical reality is that the towers could not have collapsed the way they did without them?

Forget explosive flashes, the government first has to explain how the impossible happened and the effects of resistance were overcome. They haven't done that, so why are you worrying about explosive flashes? You should be asking your government to fill in the HUGE blanks and assumptions in their 'official' story first, and why the investigations into the collapses only covers what they could spin to fit the 'official' story and ignores the rest.


Are you a structural engineer?

I'm not, but wouldn't the core also be dependent on the rest of the building standing for support? If the top floors (many tonnes) fell, that is going to seriously damage concrete etc. The steel frame and core would then be compromised. It would basically be a spine with no body around it.

Consider how tall the building is. Consider how little support that spine would have on the upper sections.

I see no problem with that falling.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Are you a structural engineer?

I'm not, but wouldn't the core also be dependent on the rest of the building standing for support? If the top floors (many tonnes) fell, that is going to seriously damage concrete etc. The steel frame and core would then be compromised. It would basically be a spine with no body around it.

I see no problem with that falling.


You don't have to be a structural engineer to understand how simple physics works in the real world.

No, the core is not going to telescope down on itself in the way you are imagining.

I have considered the buildings hight and so did the engineers that designed and built it. By spine I assume you mean the 47 massive steel columns that were 4-6" thick high-strength construction steel, that were lashed by cross braces? A construction that basically the floors hung off of? A construction that could stand on it's own? A structure that supposedly globally failed because of office fires that could not have possibly got hot enough? No sorry I respectfully disagree. That building was designed to carry 5x the weight it had to.
Do you really think engineers would do such a sloppy job in designing a building that would just globally fail from office fires and a-symmetrical damage? Don't have much faith in industry I guess? What field do you work in?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Stand on it's own? With tonnes of rubble falling on it?




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
"A structure that supposedly globally failed because of office fires that could not have possibly got hot enough?"

Oh god, you're one of them who can't understand the difference between steel melting and steel losing it's strength.

Do you people still exist?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

You don't have to be a structural engineer to understand how simple physics works in the real world.



Ah but you do need some knowlegde of structural engineering, and a bit of thought to realise that the parts of the structure are interconnected, and that buildings are designed to share the load of the structure evenly down through to the foundations.

So.....supposing you have a steel truss floor connected to the central core, and the weight above exceeds the floors design limits. Whats going to happen at the point the floor was supported off the inner concrete core?

Is it going to shear off completely with no resistance or is it likely to damage the core when its ripped off?

And if that floor spans out all ways from the core isn't it likely that the damage caused by the structral elements failing at their point of connection to the core could be sufficient to cause the central core to collapse, as in effect its being sheared off at floor level?

You would need to look very very closely at the core construction and how the floors were supported before you make any proclamations that it would have been unaffected.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
These videos show amazing rare demolition flashes.

You really got to look carefully.

I COoberates with the TOPIC AT HAND.


www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



Watch these films and comment on them if you got comments on the pentagon there is forums pertaining to it.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I wrote...

You couldn't do it before because wiring and charges would have be damaged during the crash.
You couldn't do after because a person would die from fire before getting to where charges would need to placed, or likely path to location would no longer exist.



You wrote back...

If the explosives where placed below the top mechanical floor (or at that floor), then your questions are irrelevant other than the assumption that some of these flashes are explosives from bombs (which I think they are electrical in nature myself also).


This relevant questions. This post is about controlled demo.
Which I think is impossible. I think this....


Explosive devices could not have put in the building before the airplane because...

1. people would have seen it.

2. No way to tell for sure which floors the plains would take out, so there would be no real way to know which floors to rig. If you rig 30 thru 35 and plain hits 35 thru 40 it's not going look convincing when the explosions go off 5 floors below. The videos show the building started to fall right in the area the plains hit. I also don't think whoever was flying the plain was counting floors.

3. Regardless of the type of explosive it would take too much prep time/work and would not go unnoticed.

4. If wired or remote detonated parts and pieces would have burnt up in massive fire the plains created. There would be no way to insure explosive would go off, and you don't want leave explosive laying around, just in case the building didn't fall. What going to happen to something attached to a column and an airplane hits the column?

Now why I think explosion could not be placed afterwards....

1. Someone or many someones would have to walk up a burning building with all kinds of equipment strapped to his back while at the same time everyone is trying to get out.

2. I think if there were a clean path down or up from the damaged floors people would have took these path down, and not jump out windows. Again we see from the pictures and videos that the fall started at the damaged floors. So our many someones would have go to damaged floors and some other floor below.

3. How could anyone see to do the work need to place the explosives. You can see from the pictures a very very very large amount of smoke coming from the building on those floors. That means Visibility zero. Add that to fact that smoke kills people and now our bomb guys are climbing up with tools, explosive, and respirators in area where they have zero visibility, at same time people are climbing down, going into an area that probably no longer has floors.


So, here what I think did happen...

Plains hit the building (you can have a conspires as to how that happened). They exploded doing all kind of structure damage and starting very hot fires on the effected floors. The fires from the plains cause secondary explosions like, water heaters blowing up, cleaning supplies, and any other combustible thing that might have been up there. Electrical system started shorting out causing flash and booms and also secondary fires. Floors, ceilings', pipe, and etc. started falling and banging and clanking against all kind of stuff as the fires raged on. People reported all this as bombs or secondary explosions. After some time of burning the steel started to get weak (not melt just get weak). At some critical point the steel became too weak to support the weight of the floors above damaged area. At this point there was a catastrophic failure or a blow out on the damaged floors which looked like an explosion just before the top part of build started to fall down. This started the collapse of the building from the top down. The top floors fall down to the area below the catastrophic failure, which cause a chain reaction of those floors falling on the floors below them, thus the pancake effect and the top down collapse. The rest is history.


I think if you all who believe in controlled demo would just set back and think about the technological difficulty you would see that there is no way in which a controlled demo could have happen. It's so much more logical to say the plain hitting the buildings and caused everything reported. I realize that some people reported bombs and whatever, however most the people were in panic state and wouldn't know the difference between heavy loud falling stuff and/or secondary explosions from bombs. After all it's not every people hear bombs going off or building collapsing. A water heater exploding might very well sound like an explosive device. Also keep in mind for everybody out there saying something about "bombs" there are 20 other people saying "no bombs". So you all are going to have to pick and choose who you want to believe and for me NO controlled demo seems like the logical choice based in part on the reason stated above, and controlled demo seems very un-logical.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by ebe51]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Hey ebe,

You say explosives could not be planted on the impacted floors because the planes would compromise them.

Let me ask you something.


Why would you have to detonate explosives on a column that was knocked out by the impacts in the first place? And setting off a few prematurely on the impacted floors with the planes -- what difference exactly does that make?

I don't see a problem at all. It's just convenient like that.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Why would you have to detonate explosives on a column that was knocked out by the impacts in the first place? And setting off a few prematurely on the impacted floors with the planes -- what difference exactly does that make?


Everything we see in the videos and pics show events going on the impacted floored. We don't see explosions on the lower floors. Ok, let's say just for kicks say that explosives were placed on lower floors...where's footage of this and you still have problem of rigging the building without the tenets knowing about it (there other reason too but these are quick and simple).

I'm sure if everybody keeps thinking of different ideas and ways someone will come up with some elaborate way in which control demo might could have happen, but doesn't mean it happen that way, the question is why do you need to? Airplanes hitting the building can and do explain everything, and there no need for explosives.

I do believe that there were people within our government that knew the attack was going to happen and did nothing or even help in planning. Yet, I think if so it would be a select few. Not a major operation, and no where near at the level of pulling off something like controlled demo. I don't like our government no more then some of you all, yet just because I don't like them doesn't mean they pulled off control demo. But, as sure I post a reason why someone's theory want work someone else will come up with a variation of a way it will work, then I'll have to explain why that reason want work, and this will continue till I get tired of posting. Which I'm getting close to that point now. I hate 911 threads.

I struggle with understand people's mind set, Airplanes ramming the buildings explains it all, so why keep inventing different ways to blame the government. I think they're guilty of many things, but control demo isn't one of them.

So there a question I'll probably never answered "Why do people feel the NEED to keep blaming the government?"


[edit on 13-12-2007 by ebe51]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by albie
Consider how tall the building is. Consider how little support that spine would have on the upper sections.

I see no problem with that falling.


Problem is.....it wouldn't fall straight down into itself. See the difference?

BTW, I am a structural engineer.


That does NOT mean that what I say should just be taken as fact. Please do your own research and come to conclusions on your own.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
and that buildings are designed to share the load of the structure evenly down through to the foundations.


No they're not. Or we would see a 50/50 ratio of outside to core columns. What we hear is 40/60 respecfully. How is that even?


So.....supposing you have a steel truss floor connected to the central core, and the weight above exceeds the floors design limits. Whats going to happen at the point the floor was supported off the inner concrete core?


Usually, the connection will snap since it is the point were the most shear is located. You do know why they use shear connectors on horizontal beams right?


Is it going to shear off completely with no resistance or is it likely to damage the core when its ripped off?


Even if it didn't shear off completely, it would create a moment. Which means that the core columns would NOT fall straight down into themselves.


And if that floor spans out all ways from the core isn't it likely that the damage caused by the structral elements failing at their point of connection to the core could be sufficient to cause the central core to collapse, as in effect its being sheared off at floor level?


Yes, with a moment introduced into the columns making them fall in rotation and not telescope into themselves.


You would need to look very very closely at the core construction and how the floors were supported before you make any proclamations that it would have been unaffected.


The same is true for someone who claims that they WOULD be affected, no?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
So there a question I'll probably never answered "Why do people feel the NEED to keep blaming the government?"


I actually feel the NEED to have my government be innocent.


But my NEED to know the truth of the matter outweighs this.


[edit on 12/13/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by albie
Consider how tall the building is. Consider how little support that spine would have on the upper sections.

I see no problem with that falling.


Problem is.....it wouldn't fall straight down into itself. See the difference?

BTW, I am a structural engineer.


That does NOT mean that what I say should just be taken as fact. Please do your own research and come to conclusions on your own.


I'm an electrical designer and have been working with and around electricity for over 16 years. I can say without a doubt even though we have theories and idea of how systems might mess up, we never really ever see the things we expect. I'm sure you too get the emails of plant fire and explosions. All these plants have fall safe systems that have been dreamed up for every kind of fault you can think of, aspect for the one that cause the plant to blow. No offense intended but just because someone is a structural engineer doesn't make them an expert on how a build might have collapsed. I myself am no expect on what happens when an electrical or instrumentation system goes bad, electricity can do some crazy things, but I'm pretty good at putting these systems in. The point here is don't be so quick to say it couldn't have fell without the need for Controlled demo.

Did you have the chance to read the link I posted before to what other engineers with PM wrote on the collapse?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by ebe51]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I actually feel the NEED to have my government be innocent.


But my NEED to know the truth of the matter outweighs this.


[edit on 12/13/2007 by Griff]


So what if just airplanes is the truth, I have yet to see anything convincing otherwise?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join