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.

 

"Pancake collapse" proven possible

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


His video explicitly says that no explosives were used in the collapse of that building.


Was this planned? Yes. Did they set up and clear out the building in order to collapse it? Yes. Did they organize and control the situation with the main purpose of demolishing the building? Yes.

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

No explosives needed with this one, but still a controlled demo. Once again, key words are controlled demolition. WTC 1, 2 and 7 were also CD's just done differently with explosives.



I was thinking the exact same thing.

Thanks for proving that point OP!




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenton1234
This video proves absolutely nothing of a kind. This building was gutted for weeks ahead of time and was constructed of concrete. All the pillars were pre-weakened weeks ahead of time as well. Explosives were used to blow the top half of the building to fall on the second half. Nice try though but your just making a fool out of yourself.


Exactly ...anybody who doesn't see these things you mentioned is quite delusional actually and should just quite trying to find the truth because it's probably on their forehead but they are too dumb too look in the mirror....



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'm shocked this thread is still going. Why is it in the 9/11 forums? The OP is completely irrelevant.

The building was brick right? The towers were steel and concrete. Apples to Oranges.

If that's not enough, NIST already waived the pancake theory. This thread should be closed, or moved somewhere other than 9/11 forums.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi

So, they won't be suffering massive internal damage from the air blast by a collapse, but they would if it was an explosion?


That's right. People don't get internal injuries a hurricane's windspeed. I bet this surprises you.


Get your act together. I never said they suffered from the shockwave directly, I just explained to you that an rush of air doesn't prove or exclude an explosion/natural collapse, and it happens in both cenarios.


Good to see you admit that squibs, etc are NOT proof of explosives. Welcome to the real world.


But the explosion didn't occour where they were. It occured way up, but the air blast continued through the building.


Explosions don't work like that. They're a quick rise in air pressure - shockwave - and then it decreases rapidly. So you're wrong.


Do you know what is one of the main reason NOT to use elevators in a fire or attack? Because air travels pretty quickly around buildings when forced to it, and in a fire there is a pretty damn chance that a violent fire will travel through the elevator shafts.


No, it's because you don't want to be stuck in an elevator if the power goes out and the building is burning around you. Where do you get your delusional info from?

What I find pathetic is that you claim that a air compression on the upper floors, pushing the air of some of those floors creates "hurricane winds" but an explosion, with all it energic power creating a shockwave that pushes air is just impossible..

Again, you don't know a thing about impulse pressure/duration for explosives. Do some research.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

If that's not enough, NIST already waived the pancake theory.



They waived as the cause for collapse initiation only.

Perfect example how troofers misrepresent the facts.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Beacause there was dust kicked up it wasn't?
Great logic that.


Thats a misquote from you..


As ever its not what they do show you in these 'proof of' videos .. its what they dont show that gives the true story. You DONT see what is left of the building at the end of the video. This would indicate that the collapse only looked like a pancake collapse for a couple of seconds and then the dust cloud gets to big to see anything.


There is no mention there of the dust cloud being the reason why this could not be a pancake collapse.

A rather poor tactic for avoiding the facts i put forward i feel..

[edit on 10-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by truthtothemasses
 


His video explicitly says that no explosives were used in the collapse of that building.


Was this planned? Yes. Did they set up and clear out the building in order to collapse it? Yes. Did they organize and control the situation with the main purpose of demolishing the building? Yes.

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

No explosives needed with this one, but still a controlled demo. Once again, key words are controlled demolition. WTC 1, 2 and 7 were also CD's just done differently with explosives.



I was thinking the exact same thing.

Thanks for proving that point OP!


Yeah, I'm just here to make sure people see the obvious. Lol.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Whatever you say. You're still a child.


In any case, the title of this thread is highly misleading. The OP proves nothing.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Whatever you say.



IOW, you know you're dishonest, cuz that's exactly what was ruled out.

Like I said, you're a perfect representation of the TM.

Keep up the good work making it look like a bunch of dishonest fools.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Okay lets try this. Watch this video. Listen to the man talking. If you still honestly believe that building pancaked, you have a mental illness. That's not my opinion. It's a fact.


Collapse

[edit on 10/8/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Okay lets try this. Watch this video.


Why are you avoiding?

You said that NIST ruled out pancake collapse.

I corrected you.

Why can't you just say I'm right? It's a matter of public record and indisputable.

It does nothing to your argument that it was/wasn't a pancake progression.

Are you adult enough to admit you misrepresented? If you can't, then you have a mental illness. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Anyways, lets talk about the video I linked. Lets not ignore it.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
That video in the OP has half of the entire building falling on the bottom half, I'd be surprised if the whole thing didn't collapse. Even though one floor was taken out, there is still half of the entire building's weight falling on it.
Thus, the video was crap.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Anyways, lets talk about the video I linked. Lets not ignore it.




Sure.

Where are the sounds of explosions?

Why do none of any of the videos taken during the collapses have them?

Hush-a-booms?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Joey,

The buildings were demo'd. The sooner you accept that fact the easier it will be for you buddy.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


That's right. People don't get internal injuries a hurricane's windspeed. I bet this surprises you.


How can I be surprised by something that I stated? You must think highly of yourself to make that statement.

But I find it funny that you say that, but ignore the fact that human remains were found far away from the collapse and fragmented.



Good to see you admit that squibs, etc are NOT proof of explosives. Welcome to the real world.


I admit that squibs are not proof of neither explosives nor natural collapse. It's inconclusive.



Explosions don't work like that. They're a quick rise in air pressure - shockwave - and then it decreases rapidly. So you're wrong.


I'm wrong because you say I am? Again, you think too much of yourself.

One explosion creates a shockwave and dislocation of air. Sequential explosions create a bigger rush of air. It HAPPENS in CD.



No, it's because you don't want to be stuck in an elevator if the power goes out and the building is burning around you. Where do you get your delusional info from?


Can you even read? I said "ONE OF THE REASONS FOR...". I didn't said "THE REASON FOR...". You're the one delusional. Don't put words on my mouth to justify your lack of arguments.


Again, you don't know a thing about impulse pressure/duration for explosives. Do some research.


I see you crying rivers about what I know or don't know. But I don't see you refuting what I said with proofs.

[edit on 11/8/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthtothemasses

Joey,

The buildings were demo'd. The sooner you accept that fact the easier it will be for you buddy.



No they weren't.

Fact is, it doesn't matter what I think either. TM nutters must convince the citizens that their views about 9/11 are correct in order to get their new investigation.

But the TM has failed miserably. This is no surprise.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi

I admit that squibs are not proof of neither explosives nor natural collapse. It's inconclusive.


Yup. This will come as a surprise to the other TMerz though. prepare to be attacked now.


One explosion creates a shockwave and dislocation of air. Sequential explosions create a bigger rush of air. It HAPPENS in CD.


Finally a positive claim. Now prove that this happens.


I see you crying rivers about what I know or don't know. But I don't see you refuting what I said with proofs.


Why would I bother? You guys are going nowhere. Accomplishing nothing. Convincing no one.

Keep up the magnificent work.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Why would I bother? You guys are going nowhere. Accomplishing nothing. Convincing no one.

Keep up the magnificent work.


It's hard to converse with a child.

Though I find it pointless to point this out to you, there is a well known group known as AE 9/11 Truth. The number of people who have signed there petition for a new investigation grows on a near daily basis.

To answer your pointless, intentional deflecting question, there is no audio from the actual video in the link I posted. Now, are you going to debate the video, or continue to ignore it? While your thinking of a useless reply, go read ATS user Bonez signature. You can find some help there.

[edit on 11/8/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jprophet420
 


It went down and then out the side. Thus the plumes. I talked about that earlier.

I know you did. and im telling you that the OS claims that there was global failure, and if there was global failure that means no resistance from below. If there was global failure the air would continue downwards indefinitely.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join