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.

 

World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
That is a good video, and once again puts the onus on 911 truthers to step up to the plate.
The one problem I have with it, is it debunks conspiracy theorists under the guise that 'regular' - 'common' - 'everyday' demolition techniques would be used.

Now, if indeed the building was going be brought down 'on purpose' you wouldnt use a method that has been tried, tested and presented 1000's of times on tv.


Hello, Agitatedchop... Now why would people with EVERYTHING to lose, people in high positions, even dare to put their lives on the chopping block for some unproven, untested on this scale, newfangled form of demolition?

Who would present this to the clandestine, proverbial "THEM" and once presented who in that board room or secret underground bunker or whaterver would still sign off on this infantile scheme, saying..."Hermmm, sounds like a good plan to me." What, are you going to say these speshul sekrit people are all powerful, yet cannot look at the risk of such a venture and scrap the whole project on the spot, due to the uncertainty?

Would you go for it if your life /future were on the line? Who gambles like that? (rhetorical)

Everytime I get into these speculatory threads I cannot help but visualizing that initial meeting.. ( having been in many offical meetings, and board discussions myself)

The first guy to bring this up.. "Genltmen, we have a problem..a problem with oil, and a problem with control in this country!"

(Members of the audience nod slightly on the first statement, then look confused on the second point)

First dude to EvAr bring up this crazed plan: " Just hear me out, what I have planned will solve both of our little problems..Muahahah" " We will attack the finacial center of New York City with super secret hushabooom® technology neverbefore seen with human eyes!" "Get this, it gets better! We can attack our own military headquarters with a conventional cruise missle, or drone, or anything OTHER that a boeing 757" " we can blame it all on middle eastern terrorist hijackers!"

(grumbling from the audience)

Board member #2: "Erm...Why? What good would this do us?" "killing fellow Americans...possibly our brothers our aunts, wives or mothers? For oil? Oil that we get prodominately from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela anyway?" "Killing innocent civilians and crippling our finacial markets, travel and hospitality industries, causing many of our major contributors to lose millions of dollars in revenue for..what..again?" " Risking our lives at the treasonist gallows, and the future of the American Govermental system for ..some side cash?" " All with unproven technology and kookie smoke and mirror schemes that we don't even know would work in the first place?"

(Guffaw)

Board member # 3: "Get the £Ü¢k Outta here, We didn't get into positions of power by attempting idiotic stunts like this!" " we play it safe..too safe at times" The first thing you should learn is RISK vs REWARD!...or better yet BASIC ETHICS!"

The Nutty Proposer: " C'mon guys, we could invade Afghanistan! and pass some legislation to help unify our intelligence and enforcement agencies!"

Board member # 2: We Don't NEED TO ATTACK OURSELVES! WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT SUCH RISKS!"

( Shuffling of chairs and disgruntled, offended leaders making beelines to the exit doors.)



Because then, when you do use common detonation methods, people can say
'' that looked EXACTLY like the others ''


Isn't that what this whole hullabaloo is about? "WTC 7 falling is a controlled demolition , cAuSe iT LOOKED like A ConTrOllEd DemOliTion!"

Although it sounded NOTHING like a controlled demolition.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by Taxi-Driver]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Now why would people with EVERYTHING to lose, people in high positions, even dare to put their lives on the chopping block for some unproven, untested on this scale, newfangled form of demolition?


Now how is this supposed to be a rebuttal to the fact that Roberts focuses on a very narrow definition of a controlled demolition?

It doesn't mean anything if you're not ambitious enough to implement something novel. We should both agree that at least someone was obviously willing to do something completely unprecedented on 9/11. And really, even each commercial demolition is a unique scenario and requires custom planning, and is "new" in its own right. Engineers actually have to accommodate inconveniences like that. If you don't understand the methodologies then that's your problem.


Btw, your "conversation" shows that you don't have a very real grasp of the interests involved. This is not Congress, and the White House, and the Supreme Court. This is what Dwight Eisenhower, for one, warned us against: the military industrial complex. It's certain big businesses, it exists outside of actual government positions, but it has real power and influence because of lobbyists and all sorts of other crooked practices and relationships between business and government and banks/money and government. And it produces for our military and so profits enormously from war, and also some corporations have ties to intelligence agencies that serve similar but more subtle purposes and are contracted for such.

An "inside job" in this light isn't anything that would ever involve the White House or Congress as being in any way (any individual) fully aware of what was happening. Not even Bush. It would be people more along the lines of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who proposed Operation Northwoods, or else people more along corporate or foreign lines also mostly unrelated to the main body of the US government itself. It could have been Israelis for all we know/it matters, accomodated by the Rockefellers and Port Authority (WTC project was overseen and financed by Rockefellers) having access to the site and both the means and motive since the Rockefellers are an enormously powerful family throughout the world, and had the Port Authority maintain the actual WTC site. The PA was doing "studies" in the 1980's that I at least find suspicious (calling in the buildings' engineers and sabotage experts to find vulnerabilities in the buildings that terrorists could potentially expose).

Anyway, my point is that you shouldn't only consider the idea that Congress, etc. was behind 9/11, because even I would agree with you that that's a pretty ridiculous scenario.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Now how is this supposed to be a rebuttal to the fact that Roberts focuses on a very narrow definition of a controlled demolition?


Because a newfangled clandestine form of controlled demolition would have untested, undetermined results... The first thing anyone who would be willing to commit 3000 counts of capital murder (Knowing full well their life was on the line) IS: "Will this new hushaboom­® technology work? How can we be 100% certain?"


It doesn't mean anything if you're not ambitious enough to implement something novel. We should both agree that at least someone was obviously willing to do something completely unprecedented on 9/11.


Yeah, I will go with the dudes with nothing to lose. AKA Al Queda Hijackers crashing big-assed jumbo jets into buildings at 500 mph...I mean..who has ever heard of some islamic extremist strapping a bomb to his chest and blowing up a building or a market before...sheeze! ( think of that, yet much bigger, nevertheless the precident is in place)


And really, even each commercial demolition is a unique scenario and requires custom planning, and is "new" in its own right. Engineers actually have to accommodate inconveniences like that. If you don't understand the methodologies then that's your problem.


Heh, good ole' Bsbray --talkin' down to the people that just_can't_ seem_to_ wrap_ those_ Oh-So_ complex_concepts_round_their _falterin' _lil_noodledomes..heh. No, I understand alright... I understand that controlled demolitions vary greatly, I understand that VACANT buildings are prepped thoroughly by eliminating all non support structure, furniture file cabinets, --support columns are cut (if steel) drilled if reinforced concrete..charges are straticigally placed ( varying greatly building to building) and even when all of this maticulous work has been done..there is still no 100% guarantee the demolition will succeed.

Yet you cling to some super secret hushaboom® technology theory that has never before nor after been witnessed and feel that people with everything to lose would be willing to unscrupulously take that gamble. (no precident whatsoever)

I suppose if I told you there was a unicorn in your livingroom right now..and the only reason you can't see or touch it is because you just don't understand the mystical realm..and weren't imaginative enough..you would just accept it as fact and go to petsmart and pick up a bag of PonyChow... Well, if I were pulling a B.S. Stunt like that at least I wouldn't be wrongfully accusing my countrymen of 3000 counts of capital murder.

I kinda don't like that much.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Because a newfangled clandestine form of controlled demolition would have untested, undetermined results...


Yeah, I asked how this was a rebuttal to Roberts arguing a very narrow definition of a demolition, but apparently all you can do it repeat yourself. It isn't a rebuttal at all.

You don't know any physics or engineering principles on a familiar enough level to design anything. I don't want to hear from you, about what can or can't be predicted with a demolition sequence utilizing any given device(s). You wouldn't know, and that's the truth. Neither would I, but I'm not the one making the claims here.



I understand that controlled demolitions vary greatly, I understand that VACANT buildings are prepped thoroughly by eliminating all non support structure, furniture file cabinets, --support columns are cut (if steel) drilled if reinforced concrete..charges are straticigally placed ( varying greatly building to building)


Why would it be necessary to strip out all the furniture and etc.? Would you want to professionally demolish a building with all of its contents still in it? That's the real question. And the reason columns are partially cut/drilled into is probably to save explosives, as I think I've heard Damocles or someone relevant to the field suggest before. You can ask them, though. I'm sure they'd explain the reasoning behind all of those things to you, and none of them are necessary to bring a building down.



and even when all of this maticulous work has been done..there is still no 100% guarantee the demolition will succeed.


If you really understood this then you would realize why WTC7 coming down symmetrically suggests coordination.




I suppose if I told you there was a unicorn in your livingroom right now..and the only reason you can't see or touch it is because you just don't understand the mystical realm..and weren't imaginative enough..you would just accept it as fact and go to petsmart and pick up a bag of PonyChow...


Well, you can try it if you want. Can I ask you how old you are, though? I'm not going to say anything about it, I'm just curious.



Well, if I were pulling a B.S. Stunt like that at least I wouldn't be wrongfully accusing my countrymen of 3000 counts of capital murder.


If you want to get a tear out of somebody you'll have to try harder than that. I think it's a cheap card to call anyway but whatever. I'd really be surprised if you could get someone to well up a little.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


taxi, you seem to be picking apart your own assumptions as to "why" _____ happened. Or "why" XXX people would do such a thing, etc.

Really, that's speculation of the highest kind, and the more you use it to argue, the less credibility you have.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Btw, your "conversation" shows that you don't have a very real grasp of the interests involved.
This is not Congress, and the White House, and the Supreme Court.


Sorry, but where did I say that it was ANY of those entities? Believe me when I say the big businesses that were effected on 9/11 have every bit as much pull as these "certain" big business do.


This is what Dwight Eisenhower, for one, warned us against: the military industrial complex. It's certain big businesses, it exists outside of actual government positions, but it has real power and influence because of lobbyists and all sorts of other crooked practices and relationships between business and government and banks/money and government.


So cut to the chase and name names.. Who Exactly do you want to be strung-up on the gallows for high treason and commiting 3000 counts of capital murder? Ok, Henry Shelton (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), William Swanson (CEO Raytheon) Of course Dick Cheney ( VP and Halliburton), anyone named Rockefeller.. Anyone else? What about the dude that shot off that cruise missle at the Pentagon? Or the legions of mindless manchurian candidates that rigged the towers... Do you have any names of all the people within American Airlines, United Airlines and ATC, FAA, And NORAD that conspired and colluded for the gain of some rich guy..with unwavering dedication..even after they could see that their actions caused the deaths of thousands? What about the first responders on the ground in New york and Washington. I mean are they to be punished as they would have had to repress information in order for this to flow without a hitch- ( barring a few, brave, nay, fearless - narcissistically keen minds that are all to proud to have negotiated the fictional labyrinth of sophmoric deception and figured this whole thing out --WITH CERTAINTY- all from the comfort of their momma's basement and the welcoming confines of YouTube and Google search functions!)- All those poor sheeple. They cannot elevate to this lofty position, this enlightened intellect..not even if they do all their "research"...................



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Because a newfangled clandestine form of controlled demolition would have untested, undetermined results...


Yeah, I asked how this was a rebuttal to Roberts arguing a very narrow definition of a demolition, but apparently all you can do it repeat yourself. It isn't a rebuttal at all.


I just cannot fathom how you can wrap yourself around this posture.


You don't know any physics or engineering principles on a familiar enough level to design anything. I don't want to hear from you, about what can or can't be predicted with a demolition sequence utilizing any given device(s). You wouldn't know, and that's the truth. Neither would I, but I'm not the one making the claims here.


You are just flaming... really that is all that is left. You can believe in devices that can produce the results you desire if you like...or Unicorns..Whatever you wish.


Why would it be necessary to strip out all the furniture and etc.? Would you want to professionally demolish a building with all of its contents still in it? That's the real question.
Because demolition is expensive, and anything that would hinder the end result ( the building collapsing) would be removed... It isn't rocket science.


And the reason columns are partially cut/drilled into is probably to save explosives, as I think I've heard Damocles or someone relevant to the field suggest before. You can ask them, though. I'm sure they'd explain the reasoning behind all of those things to you, and none of them are necessary to bring a building down.
Nor is sound these days...apparently.



and even when all of this maticulous work has been done..there is still no 100% guarantee the demolition will succeed.

If you really understood this then you would realize why WTC7 coming down symmetrically suggests coordination.


or that the upper exterior framing of the building was intact when the primary support coulmns began failing from below...and you don't actually think the building fell symmetrically do you? I mean the north face fell toward the south and the east face landed to the northeast .. you can see it plainly in many photographs. Of course the debris plume and surrounding buildings obscured most of the action you were expecting to see..as we have discussed ad nauseum in other threads, Bsbray.



Well, you can try it if you want. Can I ask you how old you are, though? I'm not going to say anything about it, I'm just curious.


You know all about me Bsbray..we have been through all of this before. What you are doing is a common flame tactic... you are calling me immature.. and make no bones about it, if the Unicorn analogy bothers you insert something more to your liking that is not at this time "tangible" or "proven."



If you want to get a tear out of somebody you'll have to try harder than that. I think it's a cheap card to call anyway but whatever. I'd really be surprised if you could get someone to well up a little.


Cheap card? there are no 'cards' get centered and think.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 



Do you not find it suspicious that *certain* people knew 3 different buildings were going to collapse before they actually did?

I mean other then 'controlled demolitions' how often does something like that occur??


[edit on 22-12-2007 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Who knew? Do you mean Daniel Nigro? I doubt he knew WTC 2 was going to fall. The other two he might have had a heightened fear of collapse. And would have been justified in that assesment.

Tailsman, do you feel Daniel Nigro made the right decision to pull his operation out of WTC 7.. after seeing what had happened to many of his fellow firefighters trying to save lives in towers 1 and 2?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Rudolph Giuliani was told the World Trade Center was going to collapse. There are Police on a CNN video tape telling people to move back (refering to Bldg-7) saying "its about to blow up", another voice is heard saying "see that building, its going to be coming down soon".

To reference the above Please see this discussion from the UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
www.youtube.com...

I would recommend people here as well to watch the above link, it isn't to long but it puts together what I am talking about.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Just to add another small little clip to go with the above clip I posted. Here in the following clip, a Building Engineer from Building 7 of all things seems to know that the Towers are going to collapse?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Why do you think the firefighters were afraid the WTC 7 was going to collapse, Tailsman? Do you think they had ample water supply to fight the fires in WTC 5, and 6, and 7 and just decided to skip their efforts in 7? Or perhaps the water mains were severed and there wasn't enough water to fight all of the fires. Do you not recall the accounts of first resonders describing the damage to the south face of WTC 7? The bowing, the leaning? Do you not recall the large tanks of diesel fuel stored inside the building? Do you think that perhaps they feared those tanks exploding at any time? Do you think Daniel Nigro was correct in pulling the operation in WTC 7? Leaving it to burn and deteriorate to the point of collapse?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


The mayor of New York was told the Towers were going to collapse. A building engineer from building 7 knew the Towers were going to collapse. The POLICE at the scene (refering to building 7) said 'the building is about to blow up'

Another voice is heard saying 'see that building? Its going to be coming down soon'.

Why did the person use the term "soon"? And why did the building go along with that statement of "soon"?

Reports of building 7 and its demise hit CNN and the BBC before it actually did collapse.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


taxi, you seem to be picking apart your own assumptions as to "why" _____ happened. Or "why" XXX people would do such a thing, etc.

Really, that's speculation of the highest kind, and the more you use it to argue, the less credibility you have.


Oh well, we just cannot have me being credible now can we! That just would not do so well seeing as my views differ from yours..

And I thought Space beams and micronukes were wild speculation..who knew?

I will do my best to just forget about motive and the decision making process that would lead flesh and blood people (like you and me) to the point of heinous tyrany that would cause even Edi Amin to say-- 'Dude, that's some f'ed-up stuff right there. And try to focus in on microns of sulpher or some such "research" ( chortle)



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by gottago
 


Gottago ~

So much for finding the truth huh? Truthers often ignore the facts that are presented to them. It appears that although you call it sophmoric and improper, you have not stated anything that is in error with this video.



Did you read my post before replying, and actually comprehend it? I wrote,

I don't need to see nearly ten minutes of bridges and concrete towers being cd'd to make an irrelevant point in relation to the destruction of the WTC buildings.


This is very clear English. What is so obscure about this very basic point? bsbray understands it (thanks b). The WTC was not a bridge, was is not a concrete tower or low-rise complex. The means of its destruction have nothing to do with these examples. It's a strawman argument, plain and simple, and it takes up about a 1/4 of the video.

Also, the music is godawful and the commentary often puerile.



As I have stated before and several others, Mark Roberts is a key member when it comes to 911 facts. He has encyclopedic knowledge of the events prior, during, and post 911. He has debated several members of the truth movement on a show called HARDFIRE. On the few occasions he did do this, he made the members of the movement look ...well like idiots. A simple google or youtube search will have all of his debates listed. Since his name has been spread around the 911 web, there are no leaders of the truth movement that are willing to debate him. Kevin Ryan has backed out and well as others.


Good for him. 9/11 is not a pissing contest or a football game or a college debating society semifinal. Is the above listie supposed to impress me, or what he presents? The video was sophomoric. Frankly, it's barely worth the effort to criticize it, it's so behind the curve.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
After watching this video, I wished I could have that 45 mins of my life back.

It reminds me of something that I would see from a highschool video club documentary. The silly music to make the Truthers seem... silly. The comments about the people... decitfully, etc. The use of only one form of demo... RDX. Ok, this is what companies use. It is cheap and easy to work with. You don't have to worry about blowing your hands off. This Mark guy seems to be VERY short sighted if that is his best argument. We real have no idea of the tech that is avaliable out there to the people with the money.

You want any example... how about every stealth plane out there. They were all in operations for YEARS before they became public. How about spyplanes? SR-71? People that happened to see that little bird thought they were looking at a spaceship. You can't tell me that the only explosive that would have been avaliable for use on the Towers was RDX.

So... can anyone tell me how I can get that 45 mins back?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
He does not consider it. Therefore he does not disprove it. So, he cannot fully disprove "demolition theory" without disproving every single way in which it could have been accomplished. This is why you cannot prove a negative, without proving its positive to be true.


I'm still waiting on an "official story" to explain the collapses. So far, FEMA has said pancake, and NIST refuted pancake but only tried to explain how the collapses started.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by bsbray11]



Err.. bsbray, you should think about what you're implying here. You are saying anything that isn't disproven, no matter how obvious or ridiculous it may be, automatically has the potential to be true, regardless of the circumstances / subject matter? That is like saying airplanes run off of hot dogs (pork or beef only; turkey and chicken will create problems with the bearings) because nobody has specifically gone out of there way to address the issue of airplanes using hot dogs for fuel. You say, just because this hasn't been disproven, lets overlook just how retarded or unlikely it is, or how obviously wrong it is (to the point where we dont feel the need to disprove), and hold it as potential truth which has yet to be clarified just because?

I see the similarities with "innocent until proven guilty" here. While that is a good system, when it is obvious to the police, the prosecution, the judge, jury, and maybe even the defense lawyer that the suspect indeed committed the crime, he is viewed as guilty before being proven so, because the weight is overwhelming. Take the Scott Peterson case; it was just obvious, but he was innocent up until the day he was found guilty.

But to go specifically into what you said, you said that since the guy who created this video did not completely disprove demolition on the WTC towers as a theory in every way utterly possible, it is still in the realm of possibility. But right there that is your opinion on the matter and the video, because in my opinion the guy who made the video did an excellent job at showing just how different real demolitions of tall buildings are, in comparison to the way the WTC towers appeared before and during their fall. You say since he did not document what was happening -the entire time- , not just moments before they collapsed, that it could still be a demolition, or that its still a possibility. But didn't the demolitions of other buildings that he presented, to the point of it becoming redundant, show that there are only moments between the explosions of the demolitions and the collapse of the building in which they detonated? There is no such thing as setting up bombs for demolition of a building that are only strong enough to bring the buildings down 1 hour after detonation. Theres no way to gauge it that precisely. So the moments shown and recorded before the collapses, when all eyes WERE on the buildings, show no evidence whatsoever of demolitions. So in my opinion it appears that you are trying to reach on a technicality, when the evidence is still quite overwhelming.

I mean, lets not even get into all of the uncovered deceptions that were being run on the Loose Change video, the removal of sound, the addition of sound .. incredible .. who would've thought some would go so far as to blatantly deceive to make an idea which is false appear true.

[edit on 12/22/2007 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I watched the video but stopped half way.
I watched the buildings fall, and I heard the explosions very, very good, and I even saw those “flashes” to, but,

But are not all those buildings before they are being bring down not stripped from everything inside including all the glass windows for safety measures?
Correct me if I am wrong.
So, is it then not on the moment of “pull it down” a completely empty building, with practically no background noise.
Is that then not the reason why you hear those explosions so loud?
Compare this with the towers with everything in it and of course the glass windows.
Then the enormous background sounds of screaming people, sirens and all, is that not a complete other situation?
Then the question of how on Earth good they both collapsed on practically exact the same way if it wasn’t a controlled demolition, but I don’t even want to start that discussion again.

Then the collapse of building WTC7, there was no plane, there was no burning plane fuel, and when you see the pictures just after the two towers ware collapsed it wasn’t even damage in a big way, so why than did it collapsed??????

I can search for all those videos where you here definitely big explosions, and all again and put them in my reply, but I give that up either.

For me, but of course is this my personal view of it, this video is just another supporting pro government 911 explanation, and in no way proof for what it claims.

Perhaps interesting for some of you?
The why questions.

www.tokyo.to...



[edit on 22/12/07 by spacevisitor]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Heres the way i see it. The official story left alot of questions unanswered and people on both sides of the issue try to force their belief of what happened on everyone. Now i don't buy everything in the official story and i don't think everything the truthers say is utter hogwash. I'm a firm believer that anything is possible but my not be probable.

The 9/11 truthers have been shown videos of what controlled demos look and sound like. Yet, some of them choose to continue on with this idea that silent explosives was used.

Having been in the construction/demolition fields off and on for 10 years i have yet to hear a silent explosive. And i Know if i lay down a challenge to the truthers to prove that any kind of explosive was used they can't. Even though i know there would be tell tell signs in the rubble. Mainly wheres the demo cords? wheres the residue from the explosives on the steel?

And just how would someone plant these massive amounts of explosives in 2 very secure buildings without being noticed? it takes weeks to plan the demo and days of prepping the site and running the demo cords. i'm sure during the prep someone would have surely seen these people doing this.

Now the collapse of the towers, You don't need a degree in physics to understand that with every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. as the floors fall onto each other they force the air between them outwards pushing dust and debris with it. Now i have yet to see a video of the collapse that shows dust being pushed upwards. all the dust from the collapse is being pushed to the sides of the building and then gravity does its part and pulls it down.

Also the steel failed for 2 reasons, 1) major sections of structural steel was damaged by the impact of the planes. 2) the heat produced from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel. and as the steel heated it bowed under the weight of the floors above it or snapped and cause the build to collapse under the force of the floors falling in on themselves.

Now i know what your going to say But the steel was treated with fire proofing. wrong!!!!! the steel was coated with fire retardant. which will insulate the steel for 30-90 minutes depending on several factors. 3 of the main ones are 1) as long as its not knocked off the steel. 2) the thickness in which its applied. 3) the protection rating of the retardant.

Yes a lot of the witness statements used phrases like it sounded like a bomb. i have to agree these were figures of speech and people should really listen and try to read between the lines.

Now i do enjoy the debates from the from both sides there is no room for name calling and it only distracts from the debate and makes you look immature so both sides need to stop with the petty name calling. and both sides need to realize that no matter what they say or what video clips the show not everyone is going to agree. And not everything is this big ol' conspiracy. Some things just can't be explained or they don't happen the way similar events have happened in the past. every building is built just a little bit differently even twin towers!




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join