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.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 21
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually both had no explosives!
and yet it was enough to destroy the buildings completely, and consider the fact that they werent tube-in-tube like the WTCs OR transfer truss members over a substation like WTC7!

But we'd better look out.
They did in fact "pull" those buildings in the videos! With cables! Weed, did you see any cables on WTC7?





posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Oh I'm sorry.
I thought that posting up videos of progressive collapse, and showing how a smaller top section collapsing down onto the lower section of a building can destroy the entire building would be relevant. How foolish of me to think that someone would learn something and dispel another 9/11 myth that claims the top of the WTCs that collapsed would not cause total collapse.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Are you trying to say that all three WTC buildings had some floors completely gutted and all of the supports either cut or weakened? The examples you provided were prepped for collapse before they did the yanking. Did the airplanes do such precise weakening evenly across all supports?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Are you trying to say that all three WTC buildings had some floors completely gutted and all of the supports either cut or weakened? The examples you provided were prepped for collapse before they did the yanking. Did the airplanes do such precise weakening evenly across all supports?

He's also going to fail to mention that this technique called Verinage is, according to it's patent, only suitable for reinforced concrete buildings, with load bearing walls having been removed prior to a hydrualic uplift to initiate the collapse or as you said, prepped. Not to mention it has to revolve around the center of the building in order for there to be sufficient mass (for concrete). Too bad the WTC buildings in question were constructed from steel rather than reinforced concrete, or this might actually fool somebody into thinking it is relevant.
All of which is kind of pointless if we're just supposed to ignore the burn and blast victims clamboring out of the building's basements and lobbys before the collapses. Even with their skin peeling off, and the audible and visible explosions from the live footage, we have to consider them unreliable witnesses in order to satisfy Uncle Sam's version of the story.
Oh crap, hang on my trash barrell has just suffered a universal footprint collapse... well, no never mind, it's steel there, unmolten. (pun intended)...

Meanwhile, on topic... I didn't see the show, did they mention the elevated tritium levels (55 times the norm)?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


buildings cant break up that fast? really?


i was talking about the twin towers, and even more so wtc7.
notice in this demolition video, the collapse takes about 8 seconds. that's about a TWENTY STOREY building, and i would bet dollars to donuts that it's not a steel frame building.
wtc7 fell in less than seven, and it was 47 storeys tall, and a steel frame, and it accelerated all the way to the bottom.

notice also in these demolitions, support is removed simultaneously, and these buildings we see crushing themselves are not steel core buildings with steel perimeter columns. so, the things that are similiar weigh in favour of my stance, and the things that are dissimiliar also weigh in the favour of my stance.

concrete is more susceptible to progressive collapse, because it is brittle.
also note, that as should be expected, the rate of collapse slows down as it gets closer to the ground.
i could post videos of failed demolitions where the collapse was arrested.
instead, i suggest anyone interested go to youtube and watch several different styles of demolition, and watch the acceleration







Originally posted by GenRadek[/
I think reality would like to have a word with you. Crush down collapses are possible and can destroy an entire building quickly. Also depends on the design of the building.


specifically, i said, that the twin towers cannot crush themselves that quickly. 110 storeys in 10 seconds, according to your precious 911 commission report. i would say more like 12 to 15.
there are much greater minds than mine that are on my side of the fence, and they are hard at work proving the obvious.

it is only a matter of time.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by billybob

buildings cant break up that fast? really?


i was talking about the twin towers, and even more so wtc7.
notice in this demolition video, the collapse takes about 8 seconds. that's about a TWENTY STOREY building, and i would bet dollars to donuts that it's not a steel frame building.
wtc7 fell in less than seven, and it was 47 storeys tall, and a steel frame, and it accelerated all the way to the bottom.

notice also in these demolitions, support is removed simultaneously, and these buildings we see crushing themselves are not steel core buildings with steel perimeter columns. so, the things that are similiar weigh in favour of my stance, and the things that are dissimiliar also weigh in the favour of my stance.

concrete is more susceptible to progressive collapse, because it is brittle.
also note, that as should be expected, the rate of collapse slows down as it gets closer to the ground.
i could post videos of failed demolitions where the collapse was arrested.
instead, i suggest anyone interested go to youtube and watch several different styles of demolition, and watch the acceleration







Originally posted by GenRadek[/
I think reality would like to have a word with you. Crush down collapses are possible and can destroy an entire building quickly. Also depends on the design of the building.


specifically, i said, that the twin towers cannot crush themselves that quickly. 110 storeys in 10 seconds, according to your precious 911 commission report. i would say more like 12 to 15.
there are much greater minds than mine that are on my side of the fence, and they are hard at work proving the obvious.

it is only a matter of time.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


Hey thanks. I knew it was little more than some cheap disinfo tactic, on purpose or not but I would think the poster was smarter than that from his other posts but eh...live and learn.

Anyway, I knew it was no comparison but I did not know the scale to which it was unqualified to demonstrate anything. I appreciate all that addition info. I wonder if either you or myself will be addressed on this matter. I have my doubts.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I have a question for any of you OS folk that care to answer. Where exactly where the super hot fires in WTC 7? This is an honest question that just needs and honest answer, not any personal attacks.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


That's a sticky subject for 'them' to go delving into, because to investigate WTC 7's raging two floor inferno in any official capacity, there inevitably has to arise the subject of Ghouliani's blatant violation of NYC fire codes when he installed the storage tanks of diesel fuel for his Office of Emergency Management. That would either burn Ghouliani's butt for fire codes, or cut into Silverstien's insurance money and neither of those are palatable options and would be tough for their federal judge buddy system to hide this time (guess who was Ghouliani's presidental campaign's legal advisor). For example, when Silverstien said 'pull it' he did so knowing full well there hadn't been any fire fighting operations to pull off the job since 9:45 that morning, now imagine the look on your insurance adjusters face when you told him you pulled the firefighters off the job and the building collapsed eight hours later. There's only one other realistic applicable context for the famous 'pull it' line.

As to your question about Radek, have no doubt he will back here, probably 9:00am-5:00pm as usual, with some updated talking points no doubt. We can't even get him to accept the fact that molten steel was found in the debris, so good luck getting him to do anything but insult you with that 'truther' crap label everybody is spewing and claiming to have debunked everything already.

(hey Billybob, check this link out... www.cyberspaceorbit.com...)



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I think reality would like to have a word with you. Crush down collapses are possible and can destroy an entire building quickly. Also depends on the design of the building.


Exactly, so now where is your video of a building that was designed and built in the same manner as the WTC buildings and you may have something. You are too smart for this. You know that these buildings were not just pulled down onto each other. They were prepped for demolition. Supports weakend and so on.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I thought that this was a pretty crappy attempt at debunking 911 truthers. Even my sister who thinks that im talking out my arse turned it off half way though saying she turned it off because even she "understands basic physics"



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Watch this

Notice smoke pushing out of almost every floor on south face of WTC 7

Also can see fires breaking out on north face - side away from impact

www.911myths.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Watch this

Notice smoke pushing out of almost every floor on south face of WTC 7


I asked about massive fires, not smoke. Smoke is not fire.


Also can see fires breaking out on north face - side away from impact

www.911myths.com...


Uh huh. Do you see a perfectly symmetrical fire that spans the entire building? I guess that is what I should have asked for to begin with.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
notice only three floors have windows broken out on the street side.
hardly a building "fully involved in fire".

to add and pre-empt: the guys who measured the buiding's alleged lean with an alleged sextet could have been pre-planted "disinfos".

sort of unlike the "insiders" who were telling everyone to "get back, ...the building is about to "BLOW UP"".

not "collapse", but, "blow up".



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





I asked about massive fires, not smoke. Smoke is not fire.


So what is creating all that smoke?

Fires were reported on over a dozens floors in WTC 7

Also what is a symetrical fire ? Been in number of burning buildings
Never seen a symetrical fire


Fires start in a location and progress outward from initial location consuming fuel as go.

You can see the fires spreading on the North face - notice windows breaking and spreading up the building. It is called AUTOEXTENSION
and is how fires spread. Also fires would be spreading internally
through stairways, elevator shafts and pipe/electrical conduits



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
[edit on 9/14/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
So what is creating all that smoke?


I don't know, I cannot see. Chances are that it would be fire. The smoke is good evidence that something is burning. It is in no way evidence of huge massive fires. You know what would be evidence of massive fires? Massive fires.


Fires were reported on over a dozens floors in WTC 7


Massive steel bending fires were reported on over a dozen floors?

See, you seem to be very confused much like your friends here. When I type things, I usually mean to use most of the words that I put in there. If you would then read all the words that I chose, we would not be wasting this time but...here we are.

Did I say there were NO fires at all? Perhaps you need to go back and read it more carefully (funny how I seem to have to say that to you, throatyogurt, boone, jthomas, joey canoli, and I am sure others I am forgetting. EIther you are all the same guy (and I doubt that one) or people who believe the "official story" do so because they cannot really read anyway.)

9/11 was something I was really interested in knowing the truth about. People like you have convinced me that I should just give up what I believe and toss my search for undeniable truths aside. Instead, I should do as you guys do and claim the case is closed, no reason to talk about it, no reason to listen to whiny "truthers" and then spend all day every day on an internet forum telling people how - the case is closed, there is no reason to listen to whiny "truthers", and there is no need to talk about it.

The funny thing is that given the demonstrated reading comprehension skills thus far, the people that sarcasm was aimed at are now sniffing their finger in confusion and wondering what crazy language I am using.

Anyway, thanks guys! I get it now. This is not about how those people really died or why. This is not about corruption that reaches the level where thousands of Americans lose their lives and trillions of tax dollars just vanish. This is about ego and your relentless drive to continue to tell us just how little they care about all this. Make sense? No? So, instead you are here again and again. The biggest problem you have is that when given a reason to write, you just hang yourself with the things you say. I should really let you continue.


Also what is a symetrical fire ? Been in number of burning buildings
Never seen a symetrical fire


Gosh, I really don't know. I would have to imagine there is no such thing given the nature of fire itself. That is my point. There was no symetrical burning, not even close and yet...the building failed PERFECTLY symetrically. Pay attention.



Fires start in a location and progress outward from initial location consuming fuel as go.


Thanks Mr. Wizard but if you were paying attention to what I actually asked, you would have understood what I was actually asking. See, it is really simple. Read the words I used. Put them together in your head as they are here. Use your knowledge of the English language to put them together. When you hit a speedbump - instead of posting some angry claptrap that only serves to demonstrate how little you comprehend - just ask what it means. I would be happy to write in a fashion more suitable to your reading level. I post here because I feel what I have to add has some value and therefor, I want to make sure that you completely get it or else it is really pointless.


You can see the fires spreading on the North face - notice windows breaking and spreading up the building. It is called AUTOEXTENSION
and is how fires spread. Also fires would be spreading internally
through stairways, elevator shafts and pipe/electrical conduits


Uh huh and...................................


Me wait for you say fire spread even over all floors. You not say it. Tch Tch Tch. Me want you explain how anything you say applies to what me write.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Here's the thing - fires, except on 9/11, do NOT cause steel structured buildings to collapse.

And Barry Jennings - are you familiar with his first hand accounts?

I think the debunkers are insane.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


Did I say there were NO fires at all? Perhaps you need to go back and read it more carefully (funny how I seem to have to say that to you, throatyogurt, boone, jthomas, joey canoli, and I am sure others I am forgetting. EIther you are all the same guy (and I doubt that one) or people who believe the "official story" do so because they cannot really read anyway.) .


(and I doubt that one)

i wouldn't be so quick to doubt that one. i think a small team of about one hundred people could cover the entire web with ten or twenty sockpuppets each (through proxies to "disguise" themselves.

i have outed SEVERAL sock puppets of "debbies" (debunkers) in the last 8 years, on other boards, notably "physorg", a physics forum. at least one of these debbies was both here and there, "common sense" was the avatar at the time. i think throat yogurt may have been the same puppetmaster.

i wonder if they included official story protecting sock puppetry in the national geographic special on why conspiracy theorists are out to lunch?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Dont know if this is true or relevant but I read somewhere that the Bin Laden Construction Group help build the WTC? Couldn't they have just built whatever they had into the buildings during construction. TPTB are not in any hurry to get anything done, baby steps is what they take. When things are good and ready they make thier move.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join