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.

 

The World Trade Towers "Must come down!"

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Hey, BoneZ! I have the answer to this dilemma!

We inspect the Bank of Oklahoma building thoroughly for absence of any pre-planted explosives, fully documenting the process for skeptics, then find a guy willing to fly a passenger jet into it and see if we can re-created the collapse!!!

Simple.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You may want to edit your post before TPTB see it as a threat of a terrorist attack, no matter how innocent and sarcastic you may be.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Hell yeah man. Heh..they took a guy to jail in SD because he got on a morning radio show and acted like he was this big time car booster...he was actually a friend of the people doing the show but by law, thats what they had to do. Careful there whacker.

Also, I think your plan would be quite expensive



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
I still say after the bombings in the parking garge.93 bombingThey sat down had a meeting and decide the destruction created by one of these buildings tipping from an explosion was to much to dill with in the aftermath and the loss of life and property from the surrounding buildings were to high. So they devised a way to limit the damage by placing explosives perminently in the buildings in case of emergency. On 911 emergecy was declared and the owner of the building in his own words said "pull it" meaning blow the structure so there would be less chance of tipping buildings and a controlled in its own footprint collapse. Im not saying they were part of 911 just they had a secret emergency plan for less destruction. I think even them involed with this emergency planning never had any idea how much chaos and destruction would be involed but couldn't imagine how much more there could be with a tipping building collapsing on neigboring buildings the domino effect was to scary to allow.


That is the first "controlled demolition" argument that has ever caught my attention, it makes sense, it really does, but it isn't proof. And I don't believe it, as there is nothing to support it but theory.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The Aon Center building is faced with granite (originally marble)




When completed, it was the world's tallest marble-clad building, being sheathed entirely with 43,000 slabs of Italian Carrara marble. The marble used was thinner than previously attempted in cladding a building; this quickly proved to be a mistake. In 1974, just a year after completion, one of the marble slabs detached from the façade and penetrated the roof of the nearby Prudential Center Annex. Further inspection found numerous cracks & bowing in the marble cladding of the building. To alleviate the problem, stainless steel straps were added to hold the marble in place.[3] Later, from 1990 to 1992, the entire building was refaced with Mount Airy white granite at an estimated cost of over $80 million.[2][4] (Amoco was reticent to divulge the actual amount, but it was well over half the original price of the building, without adjustment for inflation.) The discarded marble was crushed and used as landscaping decoration at Amoco's refinery in Whiting, Indiana.[2]


WTc had no such protection - buildings of older type construction around
WTC (90 West, 140 West (Verizon)) faired better than so called modern
construction like WTC 7. It was found that the heavy masonary exteriors
prevented debris from entering to inflict damage to the structure and
starting fires.



It is believed that 90 West's heavy building materials and extensive use of terra cotta inside and out helped serve as fireproofing and protected it from further damage and collapse, as opposed to the more modern skyscraper at 7 World Trade Center, which suffered similar damage and collapsed later that day.




The building experienced major damage in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Its thick masonry exterior and use of masonry to protect steel columns and structural elements helped the building withstand the attacks. Restoration of the building after the attacks took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion.


Also most fires are fought - either with passive fire protection systems
like sprinklers or by the fire department. WTC 7 sprinklers were
disabled by collapse of the towers cutting the water mains. FDNY
officers after inspecting WTC 7 concluded that the building structure
had been compromised and with no water it was futile and extremely
dangerous to attempt to fight the fires breaking out. The fires were
allowed to burn unchecked all day until they found the weak point in the
building



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The fires were allowed to burn unchecked all day until they found the weak point in the building

I'll start sending memos out to CD companies and let them know they can stop wasting so much time and money on explosives and paying large teams for months planting those explosives because fire can do what explosives can do for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time:




They will just die laughing!



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by cashlink
 


Don't buy your story for a second, even if it's not your story, the story your pushing, it's Rosie O'Donnel, Charlie Sheen-esque, the stupidity involved in the disinfo on this subject alone deserves an investigation, that's right, this story and every one like it, in and of itself, deserves an investigation, where did you get it, where did that guy get it, it all leads to some email spam college students who thought the urban legend sounded true enough to spread all over the internet, your quotes are rubbish, without the first and last names of human beings that are not fictional, who were these construction guys? what are their names? you conspiracy freaks never seem to see the truth, you skim past the truth and see only the lies, because you don't care about the details like people's names, without a name that is verifiable the source is bogus, that's actual investigative journalism, what these urban myths prove is that tabloid journalism is much more successful online.

2 second search on "Tom Malley" reveals this story is being thrown around the net by conspiracy nuts, contact the guy, and ask him about it first hand, not from some internet version of a xerox of a xerox and ask him about it, the thing is, even if the guy does exist, it just an opinion, opinions are not facts, check your facts.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Razimus]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


You're obviously a troll sent to this thread to stir up the BS and attempt to derail it. This is a conspiracy website. If you don't like us "conspiracy freaks", then go somewhere else. Your childish attacks aren't welcome.

I'll also note that you come to this thread and throw around your attacks and temper-tantrum like a little child instead of offering up some sort of evidence to counter what is being said. Take your close-minded, whiney BS somewhere else. It's not welcome here.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thedman
The fires were allowed to burn unchecked all day until they found the weak point in the building

I'll start sending memos out to CD companies and let them know they can stop wasting so much time and money on explosives and paying large teams for months planting those explosives because fire can do what explosives can do for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time:




They will just die laughing!





Hell if that's the case, soon I as hear they wanna bring the empire state building down I'll just tell them to pay me 1/2 of what the CD company wants and I'll go pour some JP4 up on the 30th floor and light it up



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Better keep looking 2 factors you forgot in your examples lets take DeWitt-Chestnut apartment its tube framed but did you bother to see how they did it its concrete its half the size of the wtc building and weighs twice the weight.

The world trade center represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs. To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column.The building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.


The plane impact caused damage to structure but not enough to cause it to fail.Then comes the fire By no means was it even close to melting steel. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C at max steel melts at 1,500°C. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The weak part was the floor as the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse.Do to its lite weight construction instead of floor joists resting on cement like the building you think was designed the same is.

Now to demolish a building the size of the wold trade center would take months of preparation miles of det cord hundreds of EBW detonators or electric matches depending on the explosives used ,Also in case you didn't know each explosion would have to be pinned to a controlled firing device. Couldn't trust radio controls because in demolitions timing is everything.Not to mention the fact that there was already so many radio signals in that building as to make it useless to try remote detonation. So we would have to run a wire from these to a secure location. Pretty sure people having to step over wires running out the front doow would have been obvious.

Now These explosions that people think they saw when the building collapsed is called explosive decompression trapped air escaping thats why i laugh when people try to show explosions while the building is already collapsing. In demolitions by the time the building reaches critical failure the explosives are done.Ever watch a demolition you'll see the charges go off the building will sit there for a couple of seconds until its supports fail. Now before a demolition your going to hear something like the forth of July lots of very loud bangs in succession.Ive watched videos and guess what there not there. hmm thats strange the building started to collapse before the explosions went off thats odd isn't it?

I understand that people buy into use of explosives thermite or a combination in your case but its just not possible to bring down a building that way with explosives. Trust me if they did use explosives anyone who had any training in demolitions would have screamed from the roof tops.But they didn't because thats not how you would drop a building like that period. What your would have seen with explosives would have been just the opposite the internal supports would have been blown causing the building to fold in on itself. But all this is theoretical any way because no one would attempt to use explosives on a building that tall without dismantling a large portion of the building.Explosives are funny they exert equal force in multiple directions even a shaped charge will exert equal force in 2. No what that means you would have found pieces of the building not blocks away but miles away killing a whole lot more people then died that day.

This is the reason in demolitions you expose the beams and even go as far as knocking holes in the outer wall to allow the blast to escape.Since i don't think all those people working there were stupid and didn't notice gaping holes in the building when they went to work id say its safe to assume explosives weren't used.

You cant go to a conspiracy sight and think they have any clue how explosives work. There not magic its simply applied force the explosions is not really what demolishes a building its stress on the remaining supports that cause the collapse you exceed there maximum load they will fail.

Now you can assume i don't know what I'm talking about thats fine don't really care what you believe ,but i will say the facts are contradictory to the assertion that there was demolitions involved.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
The plane impact caused damage to structure but not enough to cause it to fail.

That's correct. The plane impacts caused localized damage to only about 15% of the structure in the impact areas. 85% of the structure in the impact areas was completely intact.



Originally posted by dragonridr
Then comes the fire

And since fire has never brought down a steel-structured highrise in our entire history before 9/11 or after, then the fire aspect is irrelevant. And technically the plane impacts are irrelevant also since the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner travelling at 600mph.



Originally posted by dragonridr
This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse.

Take the plane impacts out of the scenario for a second. Instead of plane impacts, we're going to have a demo team completely destroy 5 floors. That means 100% of the columns on 5 floors as opposed to the 15% of the columns from the plane impacts.

With your scenario, we could have a demo team blow up 5 floors and watch the entire building collapse to the ground. That is false. Most every other highrise that has been brought down with explosives has had explosives in the building from top to bottom.

You're underestimating the strength of the WTC structure. The core was nearly indestructable with support columns in the core running horizontal, vertical and diagonal.



Originally posted by dragonridr
Do to its lite weight construction instead of floor joists resting on cement like the building you think was designed the same is.

The only lightweight aspect of the towers were the floors. And the DeWitt apartment building is not what I think was designed the same. The Wiki link I posted as a source says the building had the same type of tube structure as the WTC towers.



Originally posted by dragonridr
Couldn't trust radio controls because in demolitions timing is everything.Not to mention the fact that there was already so many radio signals in that building as to make it useless to try remote detonation. So we would have to run a wire from these to a secure location.

You can easily dismiss radio controls, but the possibility is still there and more than likely. Controlled Demolition, Inc. has a radio-controlled demolition system that they use in some of their demolitions, so that's not out of the question.



Originally posted by dragonridr
These explosions that people think they saw when the building collapsed is called explosive decompression trapped air escaping thats why i laugh when people try to show explosions while the building is already collapsing.

You must be talking about this:




You can explain the plumes away so you can sleep better at night, but you will never be able to show a video of a building collapse with these plumes that is not from a controlled demolition. These plumes have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.

You can't sit there and say that the plumes in the image from implosionworld.com above is from explosives being detonated, but the plumes at the WTC are from compressed air when they're both the same thing. You're still in the mindset that this has to look exactly like a CD to be a CD.

The demo was started at the top and explosives were detonated as the buildings collapsed. Who knows why they did it that way. One reason is that maybe they thought they could mask some of the explosive sounds and have them covered up by the actual building debris slamming into itself and the ground. But it didn't work. There are too many documented witnesses to hearing the "boom, boom, boom" detonation sequence. Not to mention the first responders seeing flashes goiing up, down and around the lower and middle levels with popping or exploding sounds. That means the lower structure was being weakened as the upper structure was collapsing onto the lower structure.



Originally posted by dragonridr
Now before a demolition your going to hear something like the forth of July lots of very loud bangs in succession.Ive watched videos and guess what there not there. hmm thats strange the building started to collapse before the explosions went off thats odd isn't it?

That's just absolutely false. There were plenty of explosions that took place before the collapses. You can hear them from miles away in the documentary called "9/11 Eyewitness". Parts 2 and 3 are there as well, filmed from 2 miles away. The first responders can corroborate the explosions in that video as well:


Gregg Brady, 9110184

I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now.


Frank Campagna, 9110224

You see 3 explosions and then the whole thing (north tower) coming
down.


Craig Carlsen, 9110505

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.


The video corroborates the first responders testimony above to 3 loud explosions in the north tower before collapse (there were actually more, but 3 loud one's are evident). And from Craig Carlsen above who said there were 10 explosions in the south tower before collapse. I believe "9/11 Eyewitness" picked up 9 of the explosions and they even point them out to you so you don't miss them. You can slow the video down with sound and hear the individual explosives being detonated during each collapse sequence.

Now watch the following video and read on:


Google Video Link




Richard Banaciski, 9110253

It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...


Karin Deshore, 9110192

Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.


Stephen Gregory, 9110008

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.


Flashes were seen at the lower and mid levels while the collapse was happening up top. The lower structure was being weakened so the collapse wave could come right through with zero resistance. You will find flashes going up, down and around a building, only in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.

The above quotes are just a few of the over 500 first responder oral histories. These don't include the many documented civilian witnesses that heard the detonation sequence as both buildings were brought down.

Continued in my next post as character limit is getting low...



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Let's talk about the basement explosion. An entire machine shop. A 300-pound steel and concrete fire door was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and laying on the floor. The parking garage was completely destroyed. The elevators were blown out. The lobby had heavy damage.

Very high-powered explosives were detonated in the basement levels and reported by numerous witnesses. And don't even try to say it was from the jet fuel because most of the jet fuel burned up in the fireballs outside of the buildings. And not to mention that if the fireballs could barely knock off the aluminum cladding at the impact area, then it most definitely will not destroy an entire parking garage, an entire machine shop, a 300-pound fire door, and the lobby.

To read more about the basement explosions and the witnesses, you can go here:

www.studyof911.com...

There were other explosions on other floors as well. You can watch FDNY firefighter John Schroeder talk about his experience. He describes being at his fire station and watched the plane hit. Then he talks about how they "saddled up" by getting their equipment, then they had to travel to the WTC. They made it into the WTC and got their orders from the command post in the lobby of the WTC, then an explosion rocked the basement levels damaging the lobby. This was a long time after the first impact which means no possible way it was from any impossible fireball.

He also describes how the first tower got rocked with an explosion as the second plane hit the second tower. The explosions in the north tower bounced them around in the stairwell like "pinballs". If you look at videos, you can see the smoke become disturbed in the north tower as the south tower was impacted indicating some sort of event in the north tower. He describes getting down to the 3rd floor and the stairwell is collapsing around them. While looking for another stairwell, they see a dead body in a closet. Could that have been somebody that knew about 9/11 and had to "disappear"?

The stairwell collapsing around them would be from the continued explosions in the first tower. Remember the south tower collapsed first and both towers were still standing at this point. Then he talks about how the lobby is completely destroyed, obviously from continued explosions. Then he describes running to the river, then the south tower collapsed, then the north collapsed later on.

Here's the short version of his interview:




These eyewitness testimonies are key to understanding what happened. How does the stairwell in the north tower start collapsing in the lower levels unless from explosives? How does the lobby become damaged and destroyed not once, but at least twice without explosives? How does a 50-ton hydraulic press along with the entire machine shop and a 300-pound fire door become destroyed without explosives? How does the parking garage become destroyed without explosives?

You will never explain these facts away from simple fireballs when most of the explosions happened well after the impacts and were happening up to the time of the collapses. Not to mention that the fireballs could not do the extensive damage described by numerous witnesses anyway.



Originally posted by dragonridr
This is the reason in demolitions you expose the beams

The only part of the WTC that would've needed explosives would have been the core and mechanical floors. The outer column sections only being connected together by bolts, and the floors only being connected to the core and outer columns by bolts, would not have needed explosives.

The reason why the mechanical floors would have to have been destroyed is the floors in the mechanical areas were made out of steel beams instead of lightweight trusses.

Here's a video of the south tower collapse. Watch an explosion rip through the entire mechanical floor area (the dark band around the tower) on both visible sides of the tower, well before the collapse wave reaches it, removing any resistance:




The core columns were plenty exposed except to the outside viewer. The buildings were blown from the inside out, which is why we see the banana-peel effect.



Originally posted by dragonridr
id say its safe to assume explosives weren't used.

Until you can explain how the parking garage, machine shop and lobby (twice) were destroyed, I think it's safe to assume explosives were used.



Originally posted by dragonridr
i will say the facts are contradictory to the assertion that there was demolitions involved.

Let's look at the facts:

1.) We have plumes, which I posted an image above, that have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.

2.) We have numerous documented witnesses, civillian and first responder, to the sounds of the detonation sequence and a multitude of flashes going up, down and around the building with popping or exploding sounds as is seen in most controlled demolitions.

3.) Many controlled demolitions start in the basement or ground levels. We have numerous documented witnesses to the many explosions that destroyed the machine shop, parking garage, elevators and lobby which is also consistant with controlled demolitions that start in the lower levels.

4.) Then we have the collapse physics where the buildings collapsed through themselves, i.e., through the greatest resistance without slowing down. Indicating that the structure below was weakened to allow the building to collapse through itself, just like most other controlled demolitions.

As you can see, all of the available evidence suggests controlled demolition and none of the evidence comes close to suggesting a fire-induced collapse, even though fires have never caused any steel-structured high-rise to collapse before.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

posted by dragonridr
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Now you can assume i don't know what I'm talking about thats fine don't really care what you believe


Yep. Something we can agree with.

You want all that work on 110 stories one after the other to be carried out in 11 seconds.

Just not possible.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Your diatribe accusing a long-time ATS member of being a "troll" seems a bit dodgy.

So nobody can be a troll if they're long-time members? We're on a conspiracy website and he comes in here calling us conspiracy freaks. He also calls the information in the OP garbage, rubbish and disinfo without a single link to support his opinions.

All he was doing was coming in this thread to troll and vent with no regard for civil discussion. If someone thinks we're all conspiracy nuts or conspiracy freaks on a conspiracy website, and can't have a civil discussion without calling people names, then they don't belong here and should be given a time-out.




[edit on 16-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I've read and read your information, yet there are plenty of places that seem to refute your conclusions, and have very reasonable explanations for the collapses.

Snippets from this source have been brought up, I think, because sections sounded familiar, but I thought this little bit was interesting:


If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


JOM pubs

I know you say the central columns in the cores were very strong, and should not have failed, but can you be 100% certain that the shearing forces weren't just too much for them, and the cumulative effects?

I know, I know....you've studied this for years, along with colleagues, but only one side of the argument can be correct. How can there be so much dispute? HOW can the Towers have been pre-rigged, with no one seeing?? Is it not true that radio-controlled devices would not have been reliable enough, so they would have had to have been hard-wired?

Just can't see it.

If only the airplanes has hit lower there probably wouldn't be any doubts about the collapses......



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I posted alot of information above and either you didn't read it all, or you don't care/can't refute some of it.

Care to explain how a 50-ton hydraulic brake press and an entire machine shop can be destroyed, a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door crumpled up and laying on the ground, parking garage destroyed, lobby destroyed, all without explosives? I bet you can't do it.

And nothing you ever post can explain away the plumes, the explosions, or the flashes that the first responders saw, all of which are indications of controlled demolition and nothing else.




[edit on 16-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Id say you've already convinced yourself as to what you think happened and this isn't really a debate at all. Ill answer your questions than I'm done because Ive seen how these 9/11 debates work out facts become irrelevant.




1.) We have plumes, which I posted an image above, that have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.


The plumes are caused by explosive decompression air escaping a confined space did you notice in a building collapse the lower floors ejecta increases as the speed of the collapse does. Now explosives don't make the building fall gravity does the plumes will occur on any building with sufficient mass to trap air even if no explosives are used.



2.) We have numerous documented witnesses, civillian and first responder, to the sounds of the detonation sequence and a multitude of flashes going up, down and around the building with popping or exploding sounds as is seen in most controlled demolitions.


These explosions you referenced again are nothing like explosives needed to bring down a building.The fireman would have thought they were being shot at by a machine gun. Watch a true demolition with sound you'll get the idea. My guess is the explosions probably had to do with the electrical equipment that building would have had multiple transformers and guess what they don't like heat.



3.) Many controlled demolitions start in the basement or ground levels. We have numerous documented witnesses to the many explosions that destroyed the machine shop, parking garage, elevators and lobby which is also consistent with controlled demolitions that start in the lower levels.


Wrong Controlled demolitions never starts out in a basement you cant control the collapse that way.Upper support beams are cut first to control direction of fall. Main supports are always the final explosions then comes the wait then gravity will pull it down.



4.) Then we have the collapse physics where the buildings collapsed through themselves, i.e., through the greatest resistance without slowing down. Indicating that the structure below was weakened to allow the building to collapse through itself, just like most other controlled demolitions.


This was a huge building gravity is more than capable of pulling it downward.Where do you expect it to fly anyway? Its not like the building would just tip over and fall like a tree.All explosions would have done was lauched objects across the city, gravity pulls a building down.


Now ill add explosions never go off after the collapse its always before. So any evidence you wish to use once the collapse is started gravity took over and no explosions are needed and the timing would be nearly impossible. I already explained what caused the collapse the floor was not capable of holding the weight of the plane when the floor joints were already weakened by fire.And the plane was not light not counting office equipment that was all ready there.It exceeded the maximum capacity of the floor causing it to slam into the floor below.

Now i only answered this out of courtesy because i see you aren't interested in facts only theories that prove your right. I showed you this buildings construction was different than what you thought.I explained some architectural details with you and told you fire was only a contributing factor and not the cause like people like to argue.There is nothing else that can be said at this point Ive shown you how it can be done and explained why explosives were not used. At this point continued discussions about the same point is useless until you understand what a controlled demolition truly involves.


[edit on 8/16/09 by dragonridr]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Originally posted by _BoneZ_



I posted alot of information above and either you didn't read it all, or you don't care/can't refute some of it.


I read it, man. Read other things too. I drew a different conclusion, based on ...


Care to explain how a 50-ton hydraulic brake press and an entire machine shop can be destroyed...


I read that the total mass of the building above ground was calculated at about 500,000 tons. Heavier wins.


...a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door crumpled up and laying on the ground, parking garage destroyed, lobby destroyed, all without explosives?


Same answer.

Rest of what you wrote addressed to me was covered by dragonridr.

I enjoy your posts, respect your dedication, and acknowledge your expertise, but I can still see very prosaic, simpler explanations, just from understanding Newtonian physics and the resulting forces.

__________
Off topic, but the effects of weight were shown on a MythBusters episode I once saw, about being buried in sand, vertically up to your neck, and whether you can escape. You would think, "Oh, sand!? Easy, just move a little at a time, work your way out. It's not that heavy, and I'm strong."

Actual results were amazing....anyway, I mention it because perceptions can be deceiving.



[edit on 16 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join