It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 3
2
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by adam_zapple
- What is the "path of most resistance" as it relates to this instance?

- What would be the "path of LEAST resistance"?

Path of MOST resistance would be the building itself, thousands of tons of construction steel bolted and welded together producing a solid structure. The path of LEAST resistance would the open air around it.

All three buildings fell in a vertical path, building 7 was collapsed into it's own footprint, the towers were not so much. The towers were too tall to have the outer walls to fall inwards, so a 'conventional' demo was impossible. I've heard it said there had been talk before 9/11 that the towers would have to be demolished the way they were built, piece by piece.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:47 PM

Originally posted by adam_zapple
How could this take place if the rest of the building was beneath these top floors?

Have you looked into the tilt of the top of WTC2? It started to fall off the top, angular momentum, and then the building underneath it collapsed faster then the tops momentum, which proves that top section could not have caused the collapse by itself.

So the resistance you refer to is the resistance encountered by the object which slows its gravitational acceleration?

Resistance is anything that stops momentum. Thousand of tons of bolted and welded steel columns, unaffected by the fires or planes impact, would be your resistance in this context.

The only way that resistance would not effect the collapse speed is if that resistance was first removed. This is scientific facts that can be reproduced in a lab. Try reproducing NISTs hypothesis in a lab.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:52 PM

I'm sure it has been answered already but your first question is a silly one. What would people think if the building collapsed with the other two when it had hardly ANY damage at all? It HAD to burn for a bit so the excuse of its collapse would be something stupid and absolutely retarded like a new phenom like 'thermal expansion'.

The lies produce lies which produce more. And in the end it is a jumbled mess of garbage that people seeking the truth have to try and wade through. It's a simple tactic of people in power. Create as much garbage as possible and the answers will never come forth.

I knew this thread was a hoax once I spotted the author.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:22 PM

posted by UKWO1Phot

Least resistance = Top floors fall to ground and leaves rest of building standing.

How could this take place if the rest of the building was beneath these top floors?

It could not unless the structure below was first destroyed.

posted by UKWO1Phot
Most resistance = Top floors slam straight down through the rest of the building structure.

So the resistance you refer to is the resistance encountered by the object which slows its gravitational acceleration?

But the collapse floors were slowed very little indicating that the most resistence below was non-existent.

But both towers (and WTC7) took the path of most resistence didn't they, down through the supposedly rigid structure below, at one time bolted and welded together into a very strong framework?

How could the towers (and WTC7) fall through the path of most resistence except that strong structure below was already destroyed beforehand ahead of the collapse wave; turning it into the path of least resistance? Both towers (and WTC7) visually fell straight down, although something (explosives?) blew the 8000 pound outer perimeter wall sections away from the towers in every direction up to 600 feet away.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by SPreston

OMG! What are you doing showing photos that reveals proof of an explosion?
You are going to make people angry, stop showing the truth it is hurting me, I can’t look anymore (some one help me!) How does 8000 pound outer wall, land 600 feet away?
If, the WTC just collapse then you would see a normal pile of debris in it collapse zone, and you would see large chunks of concrete slabs, broken, and smash everywhere. But you don’t see that why? Why is all the concrete pulverized to a fine powder? Why are steal beams blown in to other buildings?

How could the towers (and WTC7) fall through the path of most resistence except that strong structure below was already destroyed beforehand ahead of the collapse wave; turning it into the path of least resistance? Both towers (and WTC7) visually fell straight down, although something (explosives?) blew the 8000 pound outer perimeter wall sections away from the towers in every direction up to 600 feet away.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
A "textbook" demolition, does not damage surrounding buildings. WTC 7's collapse caused so much damage to 30 West Broadway that it was torn down.

But, the question is (and has yet to be satisfactorily answered by ANYONE) how did WTC 7 get wired for demolition and no one noticed?

Quite frankly, anyone that believes the three buildings were controlled demolitions dont know a doggone thing about demolitions.

If the aim was to take 'em down with no one knowing, I wouldn't expect perfection in the results. It's not as if they were looking to the judges for a score in an Olympic competition.

Despite a bit of a sloppy job, the collapse was still "textbook," moving the mass downward into a footprint through the path of greatest resistance.

Aw, geez. I had promised myself I wasn't going to post in any more Official Conspiracy Theorists' threads, and here I am doing so!

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Gonenuts
How does 8000 pound outer wall, land 600 feet away?
If, the WTC just collapse then you would see a normal pile of debris in it collapse zone, and you would see large chunks of concrete slabs, broken, and smash everywhere.

Remember that I am truther when I say this:

I believe it possible due to moments acting on wall sections. Like taking an uncooked piece of spaghetti and pushing on the ends. It could cause a huge bending moment. I'm just saying, it's not impossible.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by Gonenuts

You should know that Steven Jones has been completely discredited. His university has relieved him of his teaching duties and the civil engineering department has stated that his claims are completely unsupported.
He has no evidence for thermite, thermate or any other such material.
He claimed that the moltem metal pouring out of the tower was steel from thermite and not melted airplane aluminum because molten aluminum is always silver and never any other color. This is absolutely not true.
I worked for ALCOA and USSteel in the past and the color of hot metal is due to its temperature, not its composition. Ask any puddler.
Steven Jones is either the most incompetent physicist on the planet or a pathological liar looking to get in the spotlight and stay there.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by pteridine
He claimed that the moltem metal pouring out of the tower was steel from thermite and not melted airplane aluminum because molten aluminum is always silver and never any other color. This is absolutely not true.

Care to back this up?

I worked for ALCOA and USSteel in the past and the color of hot metal is due to its temperature, not its composition. Ask any puddler.
Steven Jones is either the most incompetent physicist on the planet or a pathological liar looking to get in the spotlight and stay there.

Again, not that I'm trying to discredit you, but, could you please back up your claims? Thanks.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by SPreston

You said:"Both towers (and WTC7) visually fell straight down, although something (explosives?) blew the 8000 pound outer perimeter wall sections away from the towers in every direction up to 600 feet away. "

Maybe this is evidence that not everything fell straight down. Big pieces fell away from the buildings. Maybe not a demolition, at that. After all, part of the inner core and part of a wall were left standing for a while before they collapsed 10-15 seconds later. Where is the demolition?

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Well a double BS on you. As usual, you failed to read the whole post. Badgerprints claimed it was textbook, my post was a response to him. You, as you normally do, jumped in with your BS. Why I didnt respond to the thread about the Greening paper...I try to stay out of battles of the wits with unarmed opponents.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by Amaterasu

And yet again, no one can explain who the Supermen were that managed to wire a 47 story building (tallest ever) for implosion in less than a week.

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by pteridine

You should know that Steven Jones has been completely discredited.

Care to back up your claim and show your sources?

civil engineering department has stated that his claims are completely unsupported.

Unsupported by whom? Care to show whom in his engineer department, who disagree with Jones report and who has done a report to support their claim that Jones is wrong in his department? I know for a fact, Jones left on his own terms, to continue in his project in the truth movement. His work is well respected. Jones is no kook only the lying media makes that claim, that’s why I do not watch TV News because, I do not support lairs. Jones work has not been peer review because the government will not let it happen, if by chance, it does get peer review and it is accepted. Then there will be an out rage of anger against this government by We the people. You can guess what that means.

He has no evidence for thermite, thermate or any other such material.

LOL On the contrary, he has proven the goods, do you care to show where he has not?

He claimed that the moltem metal pouring out of the tower was steel from thermite and not melted airplane aluminum because molten aluminum is always silver and never any other color. This is absolutely not true.
I worked for ALCOA and USSteel in the past and the color of hot metal is due to its temperature, not its composition.

I do not care what your opinion is, can you show me with science to back your claim then you will make me a believer. And please show your sources.

Steven Jones is either the most incompetent physicist on the planet or a pathological liar looking to get in the spotlight and stay there.

This is the kind of responds, I get from people, who have not done their research, and parrot the lying media.
However, since you feel Steven Jones is a pathological liar, why don’t you demonstrate to us, where he tell lies over, and over, and over. To make a claim that Steven Jones is incompetent shows you have never read a single report he has written and you have done *no* reasurch in to 911. This ridiculous comments you are making is not new to me, or people who are in search of the truth, we see this all the time, by person who have formed an opinion from watching to much mainstream News. Come on! Do a little research on the subject, and I promise you will not feel the same about 911, that is a fact.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Gonenuts]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Gonenuts]

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by pteridine

if your aluminum at alcoa glowed red it was not pure it must have been ore or an alloy (bauxite is where most aluminum ore is found )

it had to be mixed with cryoltes to get the pure aluminum out threw

then electrolysis process according to temperature recorede that day remind you these where flash teperatures was 1750 so with that fact the only metal that should have been molten was these

www.muggyweld.com...

aluminum(alloys)
brass
bronze
magnesium
Phosphorous
tin and zinc

if the flame stayed 1750 long enough silver would have started to become effected

now just need to find out how much of these metals where present from the flowing metal (laugh) coming from the build

and how it stayed molten (any metal for that matter)

falling threw air 900 feet and staying is the mystery id like to know first

molten metal of anykind no matter its alloy make up needs constant heat to stay molten

and that is a thermodynamic fact

so this should not have been possible its lying on the ground still molte with huge beams and earth around to draw the heat away, so whats keeping it molten ?? a chemical reaction maybe ?

www.investigate911.com...

[edit on 15-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:42 AM

Originally posted by dariousg

I knew this thread was a hoax once I spotted the author.

This is nice. I asked 2 simple questions that no one can seem to answer?

They waited? For what? the right time, I mean, if they were rigged with explosives, bring them all down at once. This would cause massive destruction at one time and secondary explosions would not have been heard or noticed. Those are the theories I am looking for and not links to prisonplanet.

The investigators at NIST were not the tards alot of posters make them out to be. To think some of you have the mental capability to believe Alex Jones over Noble winning scientists is amazing. It took seven years which is a very thorough investigation.

The second question is, where is the evidence. All of the steel was not whisked away in days and some of you believe. I gave a post where there are tons rusting in a field. Why doesn't Alex take a trip and take some, no one would notice. Alex Jones is a hack. I mean, if he predicted the attacks, why did he not stop them???? Trust me, I know who he is.

The prejudice on this board is astronomical. I do not believe your conspiracy theories so this thread is labeled as a hoax. Grow a set and try to answer those 2 simple questions with some thought of your own.

Griff, you starting to think this could have been natural without explosives? I can send you some pics of those big heavy columns that did twist to look like spaghetti.

Also, the terrorist plan was to hit the towers so at least one would fall on the other, just like how they planned the 93 bombing.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 15-1-2009 by esdad71]

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:54 AM
Simple, a change of plan took some time to come up with answers from the
Illuminati 911 think tank in control of the operation.

Most likely the same answers we got seven years later.

If you don't look for explosives you don't find them.
The whole issue was skirted as the master 911 plan went down with ease.

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by esdad71
Griff, you starting to think this could have been natural without explosives?

I've never denied the possibility of it. If that's what you mean.

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Gonenuts
Your statement that there are no physical evidences shows you have not done very much research in to 911.

With esdad it's more like he just ignores anything that doesn't fit the 'official story'.

He knows all the 911myths type responses, which he parrots again and again regardless of any counter argument.

I mean he still thinks we believe the buildings fell at free-fall-speed, and he still thinks it's a relevant argument.

Esdad has been around long enough to know the arguments of both sides inside out, and he uses that to throw straw man arguments around. You get nowhere debating him, her, it...

(pretty much goes for most of our resident debunkers who have been around a lot longer than their present accounts would suggest)

Wow, what a nice guy you are. Tell me where the evidence is then Captain Knowledge. That is the problem with conspiracy theorists, they always want someone else to prove their theory for them.To think I do not believe in conspiracy is not true is wrong.

Could our government blow up a building on our soil? Yes
Does the government hide things from the public? Yes
Did they pull of an operation the size of 9/11? No

You see, it is not that I do not want to see the other side. I am asking for evidence. Give me some physical proof of demolition not these same old tired videos. This is no straw man argument i was actually trying to engage in a singular part of my not believing the other side.

If you have known me long enough you would know that I am not trying to troll. I was in another thread getting beat up with conspiracy theory and wanted to see what I could get with a few questions? Maybe some engaging questions or prople trying to convince me. No, just insult. Rock on ANOK.

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by Griff

I never heard you deny it so that is why I asked. It has already bothered me that it took so long for the WTC 7 to fall when people theorize that it was bought down with explosives. Why wait?

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by esdad71
It has already bothered me that it took so long for the WTC 7 to fall when people theorize that it was bought down with explosives. Why wait?

If all three buildings came down together, then wouldn't that pretty much be the definitive moment when people say: "Hey, now that couldn't happen naturally"?

new topics

top topics

2