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.

 

Film: How the Towers Fell: Blueprint for Truth

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
really great documentary, I encourace everyone to watch. Looked for a thread on it and found nothing.

I found this to be very well presented.

they show a cool picture too, of the "pile driver" top-sections of buildings, one hanging in mid air from a crane, the other hanging from a crane over the building it fell through.
then they ask "which one will hit the ground first?"

I wont ruin anything but this is probably one of the best 911 videos I have seen to date.

www.911blogger.com...



[edit on 22-4-2008 by Jeff Riff]




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Yes, it seems very odd that the top floor of the building would reach the ground (by punching through every floor beneath it) in the same amount of time it would take to fall through open air.


It's incredible to me to make the astonishing realization that the airplane weighed approximately 100 tons, while the buildings themselves were 500,000 tons. By weight comparison, an aluminum can with 1/250 th of an ounce of lighter fluid (a few drops) being thrown into a wall of 12 cinder blocks, and the impact & resulting fire causing the entire wall to fall to the ground and pulverize into microscopic powder.


The amount of fuel in the building was so minuscule compared to its mass, there's just no reconciling the fact that the entire building was utterly destroyed top to bottom. Where is the extremely rapid release of energy, floor by floor, coming from?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   


It's incredible to me to make the astonishing realization that the airplane weighed approximately 100 tons, while the buildings themselves were 500,000 tons. By weight comparison, an aluminum can with 1/250 th of an ounce of lighter fluid (a few drops) being thrown into a wall of 12 cinder blocks, and the impact & resulting fire causing the entire wall to fall to the ground and pulverize into microscopic powder.


Lets see - a common .38 pistol round weighs in at 158 gr (10 grams)
or about a third of an ounce. It travels at approx 800 fps, which is close
to speed of the jet aircraft. Now based on you rather shoddy logic if
I shoot you should not be any problem based on disparity in mass
between the two objects. Care to participate in a demonstration?

Tell me where and when, I'll be waiting.....



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Sure. Your .38 makes a hole. The tower of blocks still stands.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Lets see - a common .38 pistol round weighs in at 158 gr (10 grams)
or about a third of an ounce.


How is a 38 round like an airliner?

Is a 38 round aluminum and hollow, with a composite nose ?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741
Sure. Your .38 makes a hole. The tower of blocks still stands.


Not to mention the towers did still stand after they were struck, with only minor damage. So it has to be the bullet AND the lighter fluid!


(Of course "minor" will be disputed by everyone that still likes to imagine the planes almost cut the building in two, but I consider less than 15% of the support columns being severed on only those floors "minor.")



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741

It's incredible to me to make the astonishing realization that the airplane weighed approximately 100 tons, while the buildings themselves were 500,000 tons. By weight comparison, an aluminum can with 1/250 th of an ounce of lighter fluid (a few drops) being thrown into a wall of 12 cinder blocks, and the impact & resulting fire causing the entire wall to fall to the ground and pulverize into microscopic powder.



you are throwing all logic by the wayside. a cinder block has no flammable material and would not nurture a fire. a cinder block is in no way constructed like WTC1&2. an aluminum can with a few drops of lighter fluid, on any scale, does not in any way reproduce the physics involved with a jet hitting a 100 story builing. comparing an aluminum can being thrown into cinderblocks has not a single iota of scientific justification when compared against the actual scenario.

also, it only takes one floor to collapse to enable the floors above it to come down on top of it, which in this case was a very large amount of mass. so your 100 ton to 500,000 ton comparison once again means nothing. you only need to do a comparison of 100 tons vs whatever one floor weighs.

not to mention the fact that 100 tons is only the weight of the plane and does not consider the tons of force caused by the explosion.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
double post, erase.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ianr5741
Sure. Your .38 makes a hole. The tower of blocks still stands.


Not to mention the towers did still stand after they were struck, with only minor damage. So it has to be the bullet AND the lighter fluid!


(Of course "minor" will be disputed by everyone that still likes to imagine the planes almost cut the building in two, but I consider less than 15% of the support columns being severed on only those floors "minor.")


so you believe that its not possible for the support beams on the breached floors to have collapsed due to the combination of damage sustained upon impact and the ensuing fire? and that the floors above it could not provide enough inertia and weight to crush the floors under it once the support beams actually did collapse? do you have any scientific data to back that up? because all i see you offer is heresay above. when you say 15% of the supports columns being severed (and leaving out the fire), do you have any scientific data that shows exactly what percentage of severed columns (plus fire) it would take to collape the building? no, you don't. you couldnt even back up if only 5% of the support columns were damaged.

on the contrary, many many respected and renowned structural engineers have explained with great competency what caused the collapse. and here we have people that probably haven't take a single credit worth of engineering giving their opinion as if it means anything. also, one guy on a video, that by the way is making it to SELL IT AND EXPLOIT YOU FOR MONEY, also should raise questions. i watched the video and he provided nothing to prove any wrongdoing.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Hey, don't take my word for it. Listen to these guys:



Google Video Link




Google Video Link



Some claims made:

- "The building would be able to sustain multiple impacts by jetliners."

- "Load capacity was 2,000% static." That's 20 times stronger than necessary!

- "The base columns along an entire side of the building could be taken out and then the building could be put into a hurricane wind, and it would still stand."


We know the buildings withstood the impact. So what we must then conclude is that the only strength remaining was overcome by fire.

10 tons of fuel cannot utterly destroy 500,000 tons of steel, concrete, and glass.

Have you ever stuck fake plant stems into those hard green spongy things that go in the bottom of planters? It's full of hard bubbles, cells. You can destroy the heck out of those things but they remain solid.

A building is similar. It's design is like a bunch of cells. You can crush parts of it, but the rest of it has no problem holding up its own weight. For example, the Mariott hotel stood even after this much damage:

i41.photobucket.com...

But look at this building. Would you say it's falling, or exploding?

i41.photobucket.com...

Hey, if you can't take it from the mouth of the engineers themselves, what else can I say?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
on the contrary, many many respected and renowned structural engineers have explained with great competency what caused the collapse.


Most reports including the original NIST computer model state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.

NO steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, no matter how severe.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ianr5741
Hey, don't take my word for it. Listen to these guys:



Google Video Link




Google Video Link



Some claims made:

- "The building would be able to sustain multiple impacts by jetliners."

- "Load capacity was 2,000% static." That's 20 times stronger than necessary!

- "The base columns along an entire side of the building could be taken out and then the building could be put into a hurricane wind, and it would still stand."


We know the buildings withstood the impact. So what we must then conclude is that the only strength remaining was overcome by fire.

10 tons of fuel cannot utterly destroy 500,000 tons of steel, concrete, and glass.

Have you ever stuck fake plant stems into those hard green spongy things that go in the bottom of planters? It's full of hard bubbles, cells. You can destroy the heck out of those things but they remain solid.

A building is similar. It's design is like a bunch of cells. You can crush parts of it, but the rest of it has no problem holding up its own weight. For example, the Mariott hotel stood even after this much damage:

i41.photobucket.com...

But look at this building. Would you say it's falling, or exploding?

i41.photobucket.com...

Hey, if you can't take it from the mouth of the engineers themselves, what else can I say?



none of this disproves the fact that it only takes one floor of failure to cause a pancake effect from above. non of this disproves that the ensuing fire (combined with the impact damage) would not be enough to collapse a floor with a large mass on top of it.

again, its a ridiculous argument to say "10 tons of fuel cannot destory 500 tons" because it doesnt need to, it only need to destroy A SINGLE FLOOR to get the chain reaction we clearly see on video.

i am a structural engineer and i take the masses of engineers words for it, as well as mine. one person selling a DVD for profit with no points that disprove that a single floor could collapse due to damage and fire. all that you posted is claims by somebody making a profit, none of the claims are backed up by scientific data.

regarding fire + damage together, if you need me to explain that if a floor is damaged upon impact, weakinging its rigidity (but which did not bring the building down) that it would now take less heat to cause critical failure then if it weren't damaged, then i can't help you. these are the basics.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
on the contrary, many many respected and renowned structural engineers have explained with great competency what caused the collapse.


Most reports including the original NIST computer model state that the buidlings withstood the planes impacts.

NO steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, no matter how severe.



they did withstand the impact. but if you need me to explain that if a floor is damaged upon impact, weakinging its rigidity (but which did not bring the building down) that it would now take less heat to cause critical failure then if it weren't damaged, then i can't help you. these are the basics. so stop with the "no steel building collapsed due to fire" because they also did not have structural damage and they also were not built the same.

if you had the same structure with the same damage that didn't collapse, then you would have a point.

disprove that all of the damage caused by the jets (fire + structrual) could not cause the collapse of a single floor weighted down by 200 tons above it.


[edit on 23-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Here it is in simple form. The floor slab of the 83rd floor was no longer supported, evidence that the beams were giving way under the intense heat. Look at this time lapse picture and see the floor slab sag for yourself:



After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.





posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
this is insane.....

with a cast of over 200 distinguished professionals,
and this is only 1 organization.....(of probably hundreds)
After showing us that they (all 3 buildings) were controlled demolition

there are still people that believe the official story.

thats almost impossible....

unless those who say they believe the official story. are just paid shills.
or they are just so brainwashed that no matter what evidence is presented,
they still say NAY.

I don`t understand.
don`t these people care about humanity?
is money or power really that COOL?
are they so far gone in wanting to kill islam or who ever
that they will say and do just about anything to back it up??



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
and you are obviously being paid by alex jones.

it would do you better to submit evidence that disproves the official story other than show how brainwashed you are.



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
A good video for those who like hearsay and do not understand physics.

One of the funniest parts, he says the concrete does not pulverized like the WTC, and the CD he shows spews concrete and dust all over the place; just from a gravity event hundreds of times smaller than the WTC kinetic energy released.

Why does Gage hide the fact CD look like gravity collapses because gravity is the MAIN energy source?

If you understand gravity, physics, math, momentum, you will not fall for Gage's faulty analogies and false information.

Does Gage get anything right? Is Gage trying to better Bush at false information. Gage has 9/11 truth tripe, and Bush is blamed for WMD tripe. Looks like they both can blame others for the hearsay involved. Irony ...



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 

wow...did you even watch the video?...I think not

these 200 professionals(and thousands more) are wrong

and you are right?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
gee.
wish I was paid by Alex.

at least I know i would be working for the good guys



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
anyone who still believes the official story
is a lost cause in my opinion.

we know better...no matter what trash you talk.
our side only cares.
yours does not.

its quite simple.

our side loves.
your side hates.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join