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.

 

9/11 Physics: THE Death Blow to the Official Fairy Tale

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the WTC had a radically different design which no other structure in the world had, except for each other

That's completely and utterly false. What damned fool loyalist site did you learn that from?


The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which (Fazlur) Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963. This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis (Sears) Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.
Wiki

You can visit my post HERE to look at images of some of the towers, and you will even learn about a shrunken WTC tower that is still standing today.




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
no one disputes hearing explosions, but you not all explosions are due to explosives.

Can aerosol cans, CRT monitors, bodies, cleaning supplies, or computers do this:






That glass was 1-2 inches thick. Those marble panels weigh hundreds of pounds. Elevators were also destroyed on the other side of the lobby from the explosions. People in the basement levels were killed or severely injured from the explosions. A 10-ton hydraulic brake press was destroyed from the explosions in the basement levels. The parking garage was destroyed from the explosions. When firefighters came back down after too many explosions rocked the building, the lobby was completely obliterated from the explosions.

Here's FDNY firefighter John Schroeder talking about his story and those explosions:






Originally posted by RipCurl
many source of explosions...none from explosives

I think the first responders, survivors, and images prove your statement to be false.



Originally posted by RipCurl
There is no issues on WTC 7 that hasn't been answered.

The only thing that needs to be said about WTC7:



If fire could do the above, CD companies would use fire instead of explosives. Fire cannot do the above, therefore it could only be accomplished by one means: explosives, period.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
if i could clear up a few details, the glass was 3 inches thick, and the hydraulic press was a 50 ton press (which doesn't mean it weighed 50 tons, but that it could squish stuff with 50 tons of pressure. it probably weighed a few hundred pounds. still big enough to be note-worthy that it was "just gone").

physics IS the death blow to the official lie, but tread gingerly when stating "facts".
never say "the steel melted according to the official story", because the official story was modified to say "weakened, allowing creep to occur".

and then, later, when you're feeling frisky, bring out the fact that there was molten STEEL everywhere at ground zero, post-collapse.

and, no, it wasn't aluminum. don't fall for that crap. aluminum melts at a low temperature, but also COOLS quickly, and will start to run when it is still SILVER. it would have to be pooled in one area to heat up to yellow hot temps, and then, it would have to start flowing after it was heated to yellow hot. and, therein lies another rub. the kind of metal is not as important as the COLOUR of the molten material. the stuff dripping from the building is yellow hot, and that is stell melting temperature. only steel would fit the bill of what the witnesses who describe molten steel testified.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Can aerosol cans, CRT monitors, bodies, cleaning supplies, or computers do this:






You do know that firefighter did break down windows glasses to enter the building to get inside faster. Aid in evacuation of the building as quickly as possible.

Thanks for misrepresenting the pictues. Truther tactics.

Thanks for showing these images. The firefighters who were there that day saved thousands of lives.




That glass was 1-2 inches thick. Those marble panels weigh hundreds of pounds. Elevators were also destroyed on the other side of the lobby from the explosions.


Nice misrepresentation of facts. As known and TESTIFIED by witnesses in the lobby of the WTC towers, a fire ball ignited the jet fuel that spilled into the elevator shafts as the plane impacted the building.

Many noticed the smell of jet fuel after the fire exploded through the lobby areas of the towers via the elevator shafts.


you should learn that spreading lies that are so easily checked and found out to be lies only shows how desperate you are at clinging to a fantasy




[edit on 1-12-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I think the first responders, survivors, and images prove your statement to be false.


Sorry, but I've spoken to the first responders who were there on 9/11/2001.

They do not AGREE with anything the truth movement has offered.

Also shows you DO not understand a simile either.


"like an explosion" doesnt mean "it was explosives".

Learn the difference.





The only thing that needs to be said about WTC7:



If fire could do the above, CD companies would use fire instead of explosives. Fire cannot do the above, therefore it could only be accomplished by one means: explosives, period.



Which shows that you do not know what you are talking about. YOU should actually educate yourself about the building's constructions, why fire is a danger to steel buildings, and physics. You have no clue what yo uare talking about. and FIREFIGHTERS would beg to differ about why they are more concerned about Steel buildings on fire, than concrete reinforced ones. Even firefighters would rather enter a wood building than a steel one when its one fire.

You have a lot of research that you haven't done. Something that you haven't bothered to do since you lap up the lies of the 911 truthers like candy.


Fire's can indeed cause steel buildings to collapse. And the WTC towers were one of many that have done so.


also as to why CD companies do not use fire. YOU CANT control fire through a building. you know that letter "C" in CD . it means CONTROLLED.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Experience or observation is the best physics.
Those that depend on knowing and depend on the physics are the ones to watch.
Fire fighters in Manhattan go into burning buildings or a burning
WTC knowing they do not crumble from fire.

Thats the physics of buildings and fire and a large part of
the insurance providers statistics.

Plane crashes do not vaporize unless you have very powerful
longitudinal waves to mechanically dissolve physical matter
which might be possible by now.
Or in other words, not physically possible without help.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


ummmm. no.
the windows were blown out by a blast. the same blast that knocked the marble off.
and, there is no way in hell that the fireball of jet fuel destroyed anything that far down in the tower.
and, fireball have NO SIGNIFICANT EXPLOSIVE PRESSURE, so even if somehow, magically, the fireball managed to burst down the entire length of the tower, it would do nothing more than BURN things. it would not crumple up a metal door, destroy a machine shop, knock off huge marble panels, or any of the other things you rebunkers (not a typo, lol) repeat endlessly.

no, it was the explosions in the B4 sublevels that did all that. i assume it was a core weakening explosive set to coincide with the airplane strike.
and, yes, it's possible to synchronize the plane strike with the basement blast. not on a PC, but on a mac, mind you, lol. centralised computer remote control of the entire demolition(s) is a given.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Thanks for misrepresenting the pictues. Truther tactics.

Let's see who's misrepresenting what. I've caught you in a bold-faced lie. You are blatantly and purposely lying to cover for the official story. Let's see how...



Originally posted by RipCurl
You do know that firefighter did break down windows glasses to enter the building to get inside faster. Aid in evacuation of the building as quickly as possible.

Oh really? Let's take a look at the picture again:



See that steel support bar that goes across the lower part of the window? That's about a good 3 feet off the ground. Please tell everyone how it would be faster to climb over that bar with all the glass hanging around in the window opening.

Furthermore, have you seen the Naudet Brothers' 9/11 dvd yet? The glass and the marble panels were already broken when firefighters got to the scene. The firefighters even commented that it looked like the plane hit the lobby. The lobby was already heavily damaged from the explosion that rocked the lower levels of the building that was supposed to be timed with the impact of the first plane. This was the same explosion that William Rodriguez and several others reported.

AND THEN!!!! You didn't even watch the interview with FDNY firefighter John Schroeder that I posted above. He clearly says that he watched the plane impact from his fire station (first explosion in the lower levels happens at plane impact). He then got geared up and traveled to the WTC and joined the other firefighters in the north tower where the command post was established. While they were getting their orders, ANOTHER explosion rocked the lower levels. Then they traveled up many floors while another explosion actually bounced them around "like pinballs" in the stairwell. Once they made it back down to the lobby, the lobby had been completely destroyed from all of the explosions.

Construction worker Phillip Morelli was also in the basement and reported numerous explosions in the basement levels that destroyed the parking garage and killed and severely injured many people in the basement levels.

So you see, numerous survivors and first responders reported an explosion at plane impact and then several more explosions in the lower levels that destroyed the parking garage, lobby, and many other levels.

Not to mention that the ignition of any fuel has a very minimal to almost NO explosive force because fuel is not an explosive. Explosives are explosive and produce the massive force and destruction seen in the lobby and lower levels of the WTC.

And then even further yet, your magical jet fuel kept igniting itself over and over killing people and destroyed the lobby and lower levels?
My god, man, come on! Please learn that explosives are explosive and the ignition of fuel is not.

But please post a single firefighter that said they broke the windows so that they could climb over a steel bar while getting a haircut from the hanging glass to get in faster.




Originally posted by RipCurl
The firefighters who were there that day saved thousands of lives.

Nobody said they didn't. Remember, I posted one FDNY firefighter above that also saved lives and who also talks about the explosions happening in the lower levels long after the planes had impacted. You chose to ignore his testimony though.

That's too bad because many of the first responders talk about the explosions in places no where near either plane impact. They talk about flashes going up, down and around both towers as they're both collapsing. Even furthering proof of CD. You need to do some real research and stop spreading your programmed misinformation from government loyalists.



Originally posted by RipCurl
As known and TESTIFIED by witnesses in the lobby of the WTC towers, a fire ball ignited the jet fuel that spilled into the elevator shafts as the plane impacted the building.

First and foremost, FDNY firefighter John Schroeder already proved you wrong. Sorry, but I'll take the word of an FDNY firefighter over anything you ever have to say. Remember that he saw the plane impact from his station, then geared up and traveled to the WTC, then he witnessed an explosion in the lower levels and continued explosions in the lower levels after that. That's some magical explosive jet fuel that kept exploding over and over, even though ignition of fuel is not an explosive. Explosives are explosive.

You do know that many explosives also create fire and fireballs. The smell of kerosene is a given at any jet plane crash. Making up BS stories about magical jet fuel that destroyed the parking garage, lobby, 50-ton hydraulic brake press, 300-pound fire door, and killed or severely injured many people, shows how foolish you really are. Explosives are explosive, not the ignition of fuel.

But I would love for you to provide one single witness, as you claim, that knows for a fact that the explosions in the lower levels were directly from jet fuel. All you're doing is making assumptions like the witness you are about to post for me.



Originally posted by RipCurl
Sorry, but I've spoken to the first responders who were there on 9/11/2001.
They do not AGREE with anything the truth movement has offered.

Maybe you're cherry picking then because there are many like John Schroeder that do.



Originally posted by RipCurl
"like an explosion" doesnt mean "it was explosives".

Yeah, except explosives blow things up like several-hundred-pound marble panels, several-inch-thick glass, 300-pound fire door, 50-ton hydraulic brake press, the lobby, the parking garage. The ignition of fuel will never, ever create the kind of destruction seen in the lower levels of the WTC and I challenge you to get a can of kerosene and try in your back yard to blow things up. It will never happen.



Originally posted by RipCurl
Learn the difference.

Sounds like you are now the one that needs to learn the difference between an explosive exploding and what the ignition of any kind of fuel does, which is nothing.



Originally posted by RipCurl
YOU should actually educate yourself about the building's constructions

Been doing that for years. The lead engineer for the WTC towers built the towers to withstand 600mph impacts from fully loaded (yes that includes fuel) jetliners.



Originally posted by RipCurl
Even firefighters would rather enter a wood building than a steel one when its one fire.

I actually had a chuckle at this statement!
Please show a list of firefighters that would rather enter a burning wood building than a steel building. Better yet, show me one name of a firefighter that would! I'll be waiting for a while!


Depending on the type, wood can take seconds to minutes to burn. Steel can take hours to weaken.
You slay me, RipCurl!



Originally posted by RipCurl
Fire's can indeed cause steel buildings to collapse. And the WTC towers were one of many that have done so.

One of many? Where do you get your programming from? Please show one single steel-structured highrise that has collapsed from fire (besides 9/11) before or after 9/11. Again, I'll be waiting a while!




Originally posted by RipCurl
also as to why CD companies do not use fire. YOU CANT control fire through a building. you know that letter "C" in CD . it means CONTROLLED.

You are 100% correct!



The building on the right is from a known CD. The building on the left, you were programmed to believe, collapsed due to simple office fires. If simple office fires can make a building collapse like that, then CD companies are paying way too much money for all the explosives they have to purchase and paying way too much money for a large team to prep a building and plant those explosives when all they need to do is have a couple people set some office fires and watch the building come straight down.

But that doesn't happen in the real world. You can't make a building come straight down exactly like a controlled demolition with just simple office fires. Hence why they use explosives and not fire. You were lied to. Wake up to the real world.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
You do know that firefighter did break down windows glasses to enter the building to get inside faster. Aid in evacuation of the building as quickly as possible.




I guess they take the time to knock out marble tiles and set nearby pedestrians on fire, too.

The above statement alone demonstrates how little you actually know about 9/11. You're not a know-it-all. You don't know it all already, and what you are asserting is dead wrong. So clear your head of this stupidity and learn that you were not there that day and there are still things even YOU have yet to understand. You can't learn anything by spouting off total BS like this and not listening to anything we say in response.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
"You do know that firefighter did break down windows glasses to enter the building to get inside faster. Aid in evacuation of the building as quickly as possible. Thanks for misrepresenting the pictues. Truther tactics."

No, THANK YOU for misrepresenting the truth.

Do yourself a favor and take a look at the following video from the lobby of the North Tower. Do you see any firefighters breaking down the windows to enter the lobby? Please pay close attention to the firefighters' comments. You do know how you make yourself look when you make statements which can be easily contradicted by video evidence?

Point number 2. Pause the video at around the 0:06 mark - the view is from inside the firefighter's vehicle.

Can you notice the smoke on the lower edge of the exterior of the North Tower? Can you explain how that smoke accumulated on the lower part of the building when the impact was at least 80 stories above? Since when does smoke travel downwards? This, along with the extensively damaged condition of the lobby, is indisputable proof there was an explosion or several explosions at the base of the tower, which were obviously caused by explosives.


How do you like the "truther tactics" now?





posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
How do you like the "truther tactics" now?


If you replace phrases like "truther tactics" with "my own stupidity," suddenly a lot of posts around here would make a lot more sense.


We post things that we believe because we understand them. If that is a "tactic" which you must defend yourself against, then you are hopelessly self-deluded.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


If those windows were "blown out by a blast" and they were up to 2" thick then why is all the glass just laying there at the foot of the window? Wouldn't a blast strong enough to blow out a 2" thick piece of glass have sent the glass flying?

Just asking questions.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   


looks to me like the glass is all on the outside. like it was blown out.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


The force of any explosion will determine the distance any debris travels. The force was obviously enough to break the glass, but not send it flying across Manhattan.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
If those windows were "blown out by a blast" and they were up to 2" thick then why is all the glass just laying there at the foot of the window? Wouldn't a blast strong enough to blow out a 2" thick piece of glass have sent the glass flying?

Just asking questions.


Apparently not.

Even the witnesses there were saying a blast had done all that damage. What in the hell kind of position are you arguing from, anyway? Are you saying the firefighters were trying to find an "easier entrance" too?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by hooper
 


The force of any explosion will determine the distance any debris travels. The force was obviously enough to break the glass, but not send it flying across Manhattan.





nice stretch with absolutely no evidence to support this opinion.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


RipCurl you are a joke.


You were trying to assert that the glass was broken because firefighters were trying to gain 'easier entry'.



Even other "debunkers" have already come to terms with the fact that an explosion rocked out of the lobby of WTC1 upon impacts. They're just trying to blame it on all number of other magical occurrences. Get with the program.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
For further relevance of the posters in this thread;


*WITNESS* *HEAR-SAY* *SEE-SAY*

DOES NOT HOLD ANY BARING ON REALITY, IN THIS THREAD

On both parties.

For instance;

"Terrorists brought the towers to the ground"

vs

"We heard explosions in building 7."

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Revolution-2012]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry

... Shanksville, since when do planes vaporize when impacting an object or the ground? Who waved a (fairy tale) magic wand and sprinkled pixie dust that flouted real, objective PHYSICS on that day only? Where the # were the planes and their passengers, contents? Such a total disappearance, or "vaporizing," never happened before or since 9/11. Was there some kind of super, super-secret technology used? I highly doubt it, but I guess one never really knows in a paradigm of secrecy-BASED government.
...

Flight 93 crash site is exactly what a 600 mph impact looks like for the attitude Flight 93 hit the ground. It is physics that supports this. The photos and video of Flight 93 crash show thousands of parts all over for hundreds of feet. The DNA of all Flight 93 passengers and terrorists found. With hundreds of trained accident investigators in the USAF, why do they all support the 19 terrorist did it truth? The lone support for wild conspiracy theories remains the domain of those who have no practical experience with physics.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by iSunTzu
 

Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksvill Pa.


United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar

04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters "Coast Mode", ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters "Coast Mode".
According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center - East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:
(relevant portions have been placed in bold)


pilotsfor911truth.org...


No plane crashed. In “MY OPINION” those airplane scraps that you all see in the photos came from an airplane bone yard, which is why the FBI will not turn over serial numbers to validate their identities, because those parts do not belong to said air craft.

When one commits a false flag operation, one must plant evidents to fool the public.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join