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.

 

Underground explosions - the cause of the 9/11 towers collapse?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   


I never said I believed any of it, I'm just posting info for debates and discussion


To me, if you don't believe it then there is no debate or discussion...




posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yoda



I never said I believed any of it, I'm just posting info for debates and discussion


To me, if you don't believe it then there is no debate or discussion...


On the contrary, you can still debate and discuss something on a 'devil's advocate' basis. I do it all the time. Sometimes the easiest way to learn about something is to argue against it.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
there is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much factual evidence that points to the 'offical story' being just that .. a story.... just do a search on ATS and actually read the links and study the pictures.....the govt's story falls apart just like the twin towers....



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
But even though the official story falls apart, does NOT mean the pre-collapse explosion was real or what people think it was. Thus far, I also cannot see any evidence of the explosion on the seismograph but I'm not a seismologist nor an expert.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
what is also interesting is Bush's response to where he was and what he was doing when he was given the news

I have an audio clip of him saying he saw the first plane hit the WTC on a tv in an elementary school before he entered a classroom to hear some students read

he said he thought to himself as he watched it "that must have been a terrible pilot" "must have been a horrible accident"

only problem with that fib is there was no tv anywhere where he was before he entered the classroom which was explained by the principal and the video of the FIRST plane hitting the WTC didn't show up until the next day

that's another article on whatreallyhappened and it also has a video showing his reaction after his chief of staff stepped in the room and whispered to him "the 2nd plane has hit, america is under attack"

there was no response, he continued to sit in the classroom for 20 more minutes



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
there is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much factual evidence that points to the 'offical story' being just that .. a story.... just do a search on ATS and actually read the links and study the pictures.....the govt's story falls apart just like the twin towers....



The problem is, that all of this so called factual evidence is anything but.


The facts are this:

Two large, heavy planes, filled with jet fuel and people, traveling at very high speeds impacted the buildings.

The impact caused severe structural damage.

The subsequent fire was fed by jet fuel.

The heat energy released by the burning jet fuel was tremendous. on the order of a gigawatt.

The fire burned everything on the impact floors this added to the heat release.

THe high heat would have 1) weakened the steel joists and connections of the floors, and 2) degraded the lightweight concrete of the floors.

Since the concrete and joists worked together to provide the strength to support the floor loads, when they failed, the floor failed.

All of the structural members of the building share the loads.

When you sever some of those structural members and weaken others, the remaining have to carry the load.

The unique design of the WTC towers contributed to the speed and the totality of the collapse.

There were no explosives in the building.

There was no thermite on the columns.

It was what it was, a terrorist attack.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Esoterica...

Not 100% sure I agree with you on this...

To me, in order to play "devels advocate" you would have to at least somewhat, belive in one side and the other ( in other words believe in both sides in order to make an argrument )...

Acording to this...


I never said I believed any of it, I'm just posting info for debates and discussion


This poster neither belives one way or the other...



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Yes, if anyone here has studied structural engineering and design, then please speak up. I have so I think I will.

In addition to another post, concrete is very strong, but with strength comes a greater propensity to shatter or break. Any severe breakage of the concrete, which is what happened, would cause the floor or parts of the floor to give way, creating a domino effect all the way down.

I was in the city that day and saw it first hand. That is the way it fell. From the impact floor downward.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
would you like some balogna with that swiss cheese?

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Who are you talking about billy? If it's me, then you obviously know nothing of physics or physical properties. Have you seen the blueprints? Were you there?

I do. I have. And I was.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It was what it was, a terrorist attack.


The Question is Who are the terrorist ? And if you know who they are, Do you have solid evidence for that or is that also a "speculation" ?

And How can do you explain the WTC 7 building collapse ? And also how do you explain the evidence they've found soon after the attacks ? An Arabic pilot manual ? A half burned Passport ? Hmmm, strange.

And also how do you explain The President's reaction combined with what you can see on a video taken at a elemtary school somewhere in Florida where The President was at the time of the attacks.

How do you explain his contradicting claims about what he did and saw ?

For me it's clear that there's more into this than just a simple excuse of "it was the terrorists" well that is easy to say right ? I mean anyone can be a terrorist, even a state. We all know that.

How come that most of the fund raised for the "War on Terrorism" is spended in Iraq ? How come Iraq is suddenly a part of "International Terrorism" ?

I say if you connect the dots with the proper lines you'll understand much better that it won't matter if you come up with a perfect explanation for one thing, there will be always other things that doesn't add up.. and if the gov, is telling the truth, we'd have NO questions by now, it would have all been clear. And quess what ? Almost a year after the start of the invasion, peoples still don't know if it was justified or not !

Think about that...



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
2 planes hit the buildings. They went down. nuff said.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Actually no, a plane of that magnitutde, bulk, and the fuel could not bring down a building like the WTC. Impossible. What did it then? Who knows? but if the central columns were destabalised from the ground, then the shock moving up, that would be enough to fracture, then cause the rippling collapse from above. That's just my opinion though, based on the increduluos story that a plane can bring a building like that down.

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by version]



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I agree with you version, it's the exact same way with the Pentagon, look at this site:

www.asile.org...

"The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds."

The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon? *250 mph when landing, 600 mph in flight.

The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high.

Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building.

You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Those points and many more are illustrated with pictures on that site, very interesting.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   


TekNo88: do do you think there's a possibility that there were bombs in the basement like there were in i think it was 1992?


See www.cooperativeresearch.org... . Read the part which says: '(6:30 a.m.) A man has an argument with five Middle Eastern men over a parking space in the parking lot of Boston's Logan Airport. Later in the day he reports the event, and the car is discovered to have been rented by Mohamed Atta. Inside, police find a ramp pass, allowing access to restricted airport areas. ["About 6.30," News of the World, 9/16/01, time unknown, Miami Herald, 9/22/01] Was the argument a staged event to make sure the car would be found? Why would they leave such a pass in their car instead of using it to board the airplanes?'

Maybe there was another extremist with another ramp pass and similarly had a car full of explosives parked in the same carpark???



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   
so many threads all saying the same thing

so many copies and pastes from the same sources

so many people on a quest to disprove what myself and THOUSANDS of other eyewitnesses saw.

i don't see the point in all this really. what exactly are you trying to say? that the planes that half a million people saw hit the buildings didn't do any damage? that the fires burning on the top floor and the creaking steel beams giving way had nothing to do with the collapse? have you ever been in the area when a large object moving at a high speed collides with an "immovable object" and felt the reverberations? obviously the authors of your sites have not.

and who do you take your information from? places like casseopia? we discussed their inability to produce honest stories in a previous thread where they were shown to have admitted a fraudulently credited interview yet refused to correct the error. these are sites that simply want readership. people need to understand... scandal sells.



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 04:08 AM
link   
would you like some sugar with that medicine?
some lube for that shaft?
it was a staged illuminati global ceremony.
the jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
it is nearly impossible for EXPERIENCED pilots to precisely fly into a tower.
one passport out of the rubble? c'mon...?
no black box, ...c'mon.
hi jackers still alive? hello!
devout muslim suicide mission highjackers DRINKING the night before..... uhhhhh?
bush. duh.
ensuing political upheaval(chaos) and new laws and atmosfear(ordo).
all you people who say you were there are just letters created by light on a cathode ray tube. you are less real than television.
the truth will out. howl at the moon to your hearts content.



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
so many threads all saying the same thing

so many copies and pastes from the same sources

so many people on a quest to disprove what myself and THOUSANDS of other eyewitnesses saw.

i don't see the point in all this really. what exactly are you trying to say? that the planes that half a million people saw hit the buildings didn't do any damage? that the fires burning on the top floor and the creaking steel beams giving way had nothing to do with the collapse? have you ever been in the area when a large object moving at a high speed collides with an "immovable object" and felt the reverberations? obviously the authors of your sites have not.

and who do you take your information from? places like casseopia? we discussed their inability to produce honest stories in a previous thread where they were shown to have admitted a fraudulently credited interview yet refused to correct the error. these are sites that simply want readership. people need to understand... scandal sells.



The planes did do damage, an exreme amount, but not enough to topple both buildings, and not in that space of time. I don't know many structural engineers who can accept that official story.
All I can say is that after weighing up all the documentation on the events, it's IMO that there was far more going on that day than what we are led to believe by the media, and the Goverrment. I'm not the biggest fan of sites like WRH, and that Cassopia one; and while not ignoring them, I tend to filter out information from sources that others might deem more reliable.

The thing is, there's far too many holes in this story, and too neatly wrapped up into simplistic terms for me to accept. The truth is probably many things, some of them I have a gut feeling about, others I can;t just get my head round, which is probably what those who masterminded it wanted.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
would you like some sugar with that medicine?
some lube for that shaft?
it was a staged illuminati global ceremony.
the jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt steel.


No one said that the jet fuel melted the steel. The heat of the fire caused the steel to loose strength. In the compromised condition of the building, the loss of strength of just a few of the undamaged structural members was enough.


Originally posted by billybob
it is nearly impossible for EXPERIENCED pilots to precisely fly into a tower.


This is true, there arent that many pilots around that have experience in flying into buildings. Most experienced pilots become experienced pilots by avoiding buildings.


Originally posted by billybob
one passport out of the rubble? c'mon...?
no black box, ...c'mon.


The passport was likely on Attas person, in the cabin when the plane hit. A number of airplane parts passed completely through the building on impact. The cabin would have been physically destroyed, but not necessarily burned. The black box was in the tail.


Originally posted by billybob
hi jackers still alive? hello!


WTF are you talking about?


Originally posted by billybob
devout muslim suicide mission highjackers DRINKING the night before..... uhhhhh?


Truly devout Muslims are not suicide bombers, and unless you are an expert in the psychology of Muslim suicide bombers, I dont think that you can make anything out of this.




Originally posted by version
The planes did do damage, an exreme amount, but not enough to topple both buildings, and not in that space of time. I don't know many structural engineers who can accept that official story.


If you know of any structural engineers that feel that way, please U2U their names and or e-mail addresses to me. I would like to talk to them. Meanwhile if this is just your opinion, then say so like it is my opinion that. . .

I sincerely doubt that there are any legitimate structural engineers out there that believe that explosives were planted in the building.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I have my degree in that, albeit for ships, but there was a great deal of study on steel (which is more complicated than you think) and buildings.

I also saw physically, bending of the buildings which would cause the cracking of concrete.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join