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.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 17
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Sorry double post see below....

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


No one is stating here that holographes & anti matter bombs were used. What we are stating is that some sort of explosives were indeed present within the buildings. We focus on evidence and facts that we can see and examine with our eyes. Stop derailing what is being said.

You and your government wants us to believe the laws of physics were some how suspended on 9/11 to allow two 110 story steel structures to collapse in 8-10 seconds. Hello little Timmy, thats way too fast. You ever took physics class? Let me school you. The Towers cannot exhibit a gravity driven collapse sequence while at the same time maintaining all the characteristics of a controlled demolition; that’s a contradiction. I hope your intelligence allows you to even comprehend what I just said.



Do you want to explain how do you get 110 floors with 47 steel/reinforced concrete cores to collapse at about the same time, straight down leaving nothing standing? That isn’t possible, unless of course a controlled demolition is taking place. As each floor hits a stationary floor that will slow the collapse down, not speed, as if we're in a damn cartoon. And more so, at the very beginning of each collapse "dust" is being produced. Now if dust is being produced where is the mass which caused the collapse? What can move mass out of the way to allow for this dust to be produced and the collapse to be rapid? Explosives......

We have many eye witnesses who were actually there on 9/11 who claim they heard explosives and "bombs going off". That’s an incredible choice of words. People seeing "flashes of light" around the entire building along with loud explosions. Now im no fool but that is characteristics of explosives and a controlled demolition. Not to mention we see explosions occur 20-50 floors below the impact zone, thats something "air compression" cannot account for. There is no other explaination for that besides explosives, you cant refute that.





What force would be needed to hurl steel weighing in the tons laterally upto 500 feet away... ummm explosives....




Here is a actual explosion. See any difference?



Steel weighing in the tons were thrown laterally as far as 500 feet. Here's a gash in 3 World Financial Center, about 400 feet away from the North Tower, and it's several hundred feet up.



A lie can have 1 million people believe it, but yet it is still a lie.

Peace

CR


[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
So we have buildings that look as if explosives were used to bring them down. Whether you believe that or not, you must admit, it looks as if the buildings "exploded." The first tower that collapses appears to tilt as if to fall over. Then somehow the tower underneath the tilting part simultaneously begins to fall, despite obviously applying less pressure opposite the direction of the tilt. Then that whole section above seems to just disappear behind a cloud of dust.

If you believe all this was just normal, then how would you explain the Israeli's who were arrested by the George Washington Bridge with a van full of explosives? As described by Dan Rather in this video: video.google.com...

Why do you suppose they had explosives in the van? And other Israeli's were arrested due to reports of filming and celebrating the attack. I wonder what they were intending to do with those explosives. I also wonder why the company they worked for closed up shop and move out of the US within days. We have people making accusations that explosives were used. We have people arrested in possession of explosives. Would this qualify as a 2 + 2 = 4 equation?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


Yea. Cloud produced by explosives planted towards the center of the building only injecting out single windows at random levels.
Right.......
*please note sarcasm*

And didn't you notice that the collapses favored or certain side.
The sides that were initially struck.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


Yea. Cloud produced by explosives planted towards the center of the building only injecting out single windows at random levels.
Right.......
*please note sarcasm*

And didn't you notice that the collapses favored or certain side.
The sides that were initially struck.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]


Out of all that you managed to rebuttal what exactly?


I'm sorry your uneducated knowledge of physics is not explaining away the explosions which occurred within all 3 buildings. It's now justified to say your uninformed. First off these explosions and flashes of light I speak of occured BEFORE, DURING, and "AFTER" the plane impacts. Plane impacts dont "magically" cause multiple explosions "50 floors below" the impact zone, 30 to 56 minutes after the buildings have been standing damaged at 4 floors near the top.

What you need to understand is "wind, rain, water or fire" cannot account for these explosive "squibs" 30-50 floors below the impact zone. Only some sort of explosives can. You know what else is striking, these explosions not only occur below the impact zone, but they occurred in rapid secession within a synchronized manner, all the way around and down the building until it collapsed entirely. What we saw on 9/11 with the twin towers and building 7, we would NOT see in a natural gravity driven collapse. Its just impossible, I shouldnt even have to argue that point, thats common sense, but then again common sense isnt that common.

I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a knob called "brightness", but it doesn't work; damn.

Peace

CR



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
So we have buildings that look as if explosives were used to bring them down. Whether you believe that or not, you must admit, it looks as if the buildings "exploded." The first tower that collapses appears to tilt as if to fall over. Then somehow the tower underneath the tilting part simultaneously begins to fall, despite obviously applying less pressure opposite the direction of the tilt. Then that whole section above seems to just disappear behind a cloud of dust.

If you believe all this was just normal, then how would you explain the Israeli's who were arrested by the George Washington Bridge with a van full of explosives? As described by Dan Rather in this video: video.google.com...

Why do you suppose they had explosives in the van? And other Israeli's were arrested due to reports of filming and celebrating the attack. I wonder what they were intending to do with those explosives. I also wonder why the company they worked for closed up shop and move out of the US within days. We have people making accusations that explosives were used. We have people arrested in possession of explosives. Would this qualify as a 2 + 2 = 4 equation?


Lets not forget they were released without further investigation



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


It's amazing how when the truthers get upset like you have, suddenly start hurling childish insults.

You make claims of impossibilities yet I can show you experts in demolition, engineering, physics who say you're wrong. So are they all now part of the conspiracy? It seems as though almost everyone except ATS members are part of the 9/11 conspiracy
You think one of us would overhear a few of them talking over coffee at McDonalds in the morning some time ????



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by Conspiracy Realist
 


Yea. Cloud produced by explosives planted towards the center of the building only injecting out single windows at random levels.
Right.......
*please note sarcasm*

And didn't you notice that the collapses favored or certain side.
The sides that were initially struck.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]


And let's not forget that teams of demo experts would be working on installing cord and explosives for literally months yet nobody saw them do it???
On top of that, they flew a plane into the side of the building and all that damage didn't affect all those explosives in any way so they all still worked perfectly???
Oh yeah, one more thing, let's also not forget the buildings collapsed from the top down and CD happens from the bottom up.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by jfj123]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Of course.
It's the last line of defense of a fanatic.
They can't win you by their faulty "facts" they will try to insult you into agreeing with them. Too bad no one can make anyone feel small without the other person's consent and CR in particular lacks that ability.
Though he thinks he does. Obviously.

And CR since your obviously too busy in trying to build your ego up I only picked the choices bits of your rant to criticize. Seeing as to how its useless speaking since to you anyway seeing as to how quickly you will resort to name calling.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Realist

You and your government wants us to believe the laws of physics were some how suspended on 9/11 to allow two 110 story steel structures to collapse in 8-10 seconds.

What force would be needed to hurl steel weighing in the tons laterally upto 500 feet away... ummm explosives....



1- This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Even hardcore CTerz here on ATS have pretty much abandoned the 8-10 second statement.

2- If you're suggesting that explosives were used to blast these heavy pieces, I suggest that you first find some calculations about how much RDX would be needed to throw a 30 ton piece 500'. You'd no longer push this ridiculous theory if you actually knew.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
It's amazing how when the truthers get upset like you have, suddenly start hurling childish insults.


Maybe becasue beleivers usually gang up and do hurl chidish insults first


You make claims of impossibilities yet I can show you experts in demolition, engineering, physics who say you're wrong.


The same cen be said of the believers, becasue i can show lots of pilots, military / security experts, first responders, and engineers who do not believe the official story.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
They can't win you by their faulty "facts" they will try to insult you into agreeing with them.


Yes that sounds exactly like the believers. They like to gang up and insult people when they get proven wrong and cannot show any evidence to support the official story.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- If you're suggesting that explosives were used to blast these heavy pieces, I suggest that you first find some calculations about how much RDX would be needed to throw a 30 ton piece 500'. You'd no longer push this ridiculous theory if you actually knew.


Oh but you think gravity would do it? Now that's what I'd call rediculas.

You folks have really twisted logic. Not much more can be said.

Why don't you do some calculations to show it wouldn't need explosives to laterally eject 500 ton pieces of steel.
Don't forget Winter Garden almost destroyed by steel weighing tons and that's almost 600ft. away

Can't you see what the mistake is in your thinking? Are you thinking at all, or are just throwing anything out there that 'sounds good' for your side of the argument?

Keep it up, this is pure comedy...And no that's not an insult because I have no argument...



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Why don't you do some calculations to show it wouldn't need explosives to laterally eject 500 ton pieces of steel.



I'll provide you with this, not that you'll understand any of it.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

For a worked example, Rememnikov [150] presents a typical charge of 100 kg TNT
exploding at a distance of 15 meters. A series of objects placed at this distance would
experience 272 kPa or just under 40 PSI, but would only experience the overpressure for
17.2 milliseconds, including the reflection of the blast, after which the pressure wave has
passed the objects. Let’s assume we’re discussing a section of unattached, hollow square
steel column 3 m high by 20 cm wide, with walls 4 cm thick. This object presents a
96
maximum of 0.6 m2 to the blast front, so it experiences a maximum force of 272 kPa x
0.6 m2 = 163,200 N for 17.2 milliseconds, for a total impulse of 2807 Newton seconds.
It should be noted that the simplified calculation above grossly overestimates the total
impulse, because we have assumed the peak pressure is sustained for the entire duration,
when in reality a lower average value is expected. The actual expected impulse per
facing area, seen in Table 1 of Rememnikov’s paper, is a mere 955 kPa-msec, or only 573
Newton seconds imparted to our column as above. We therefore are using a very
generous estimate, almost five times higher than we actually expect. We will use our
simplified estimate rather than the lower, more accurate number to silence any doubts
that we have potentially underestimated the maximum imparted velocity.
The total impulse is equal to the mass of the object times the change in velocity. In this
case, our column contains 256 cm2 x 3 m of steel or 76,800 cm3 of steel, for a mass of
approximately 600 kg. The column would, therefore, be accelerated by 2807 N s / 600 kg
= 4.7 meters per second, or about 10 miles per hour – hardly a remarkable value
compared to the ricochet scenario described above. In order to propel this column at the
speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT
equivalent – very large and clearly audible explosives indeed, even accepting our
generous assumptions above.


Did you get that? To throw A 600kg piece 600' from a height of 500' would require 700kg of TNT equivalent...........

Still believe that explosives did it?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Still believe that explosives did it?


Still believe a normal collapse did it ?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


LOL you get funnier. Please explain how gravity can laterally eject pieces of steel weighing in the tons and inbed them in other buildings.

Your cut and paste didn't answer squat...



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You've never snapped a twig and seen a piece be ejected laterally? It's tension provided by gravity, not gravity pulling it sideways.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
You've never snapped a twig and seen a piece be ejected laterally? It's tension provided by gravity, not gravity pulling it sideways.


But thats not what the official story states, is it?

Are you saying the officil story has gaps ?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm sorry, I'm ignoring you because you said you were ignoring me for ignoring you. Anytime I disagree with you, you call me nasty names instead of talking about things...



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Anytime I disagree with you, you call me nasty names instead of talking about things...


Oh no i am turning into a believer, i am calling people names who do not agree with me.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join