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.

 

What is that sound coming from the WTC?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by One Moment
 


They must have been very advanced nuclear bombs to not leave behind any detectable radiation.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your 'blah blah blah' attitude is why I decline to debate any further with you.


Did you even understand my last post to you?

All you've done here is prove once again you don't have ANY evidence like you claimed, you're not doing me a favour by posting your evidence you would be supporting your own claim. Blah blah blah was because claims without support are not worth the time it took to write them, so why should I bother with it if you won't supply the evidence you claim is available?

Just admit you have no evidence, then take a good look at why you believe what you do...Or present your evidence and we can discus it instead of wasting time with this silly childish banter.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Blah blah blah was because claims without support are not worth the time it took to write them,.


So then you're wasting your time with your claim : symmetric collapse proves demo?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
One thing I find interesting is you never hear about the asbestos fireproofing of the building. Well maybe you do about how it "fell off" from the impact of the plane, but if you believe that you have other issues. Im talking about the deadline given to the owner of the building to replace all the fireproofing because of it being asbestos. Given that info I could see why they would want to pull off an insurance job and collect money instead of paying to fix it.

PS: A building falling down, falls DOWN not sideways as 100k beams flew blocks away from the towers.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

Buildings just don't fall in there footprint. The only buildings ive ever seen that duplicate the wtc falling have been demoed. Most of you people still believe a bunch of flunkies pulled a fast one and got over the nas and the feds and the cia and our deffence grid.
Come on wake up this was set up from the start. Our own goverment did this . All you ever get is one bs storie after another, the goverment owns every aspect of the media. Most people have a very short memory they got away with killing kennedy oh i forgot ozwald was the lone gunmen "RIGHT" The people in this country wont even admit the whats true even though it is in plane view for them to see.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
symmetric collapse proves demo?


What is it about my explanation you don't understand?

I mean c'mon, you ask the question like I made the claim with no explanation?
This is not the first time you've read my posts on this.

So how does a building fall all the way to it's basement and not be slowed down or deflected by resistance?

RESISTANCE seems to be the one thing that you debunkers are afraid of. None of you ever offer an explanation, other than silly stuff like 'it was gravity', or some even claim there was resistance but can't explain why the resistance they claim was there didn't slow the collapse wave or cause an asymmetry in the collapse?

Controlled demolition is based on the fact that resistance causes asymmetry in a collapse, otherwise there would be no need to take out specific columns to control the collapse, you could just initiate the collapse from the top and watch it go. You're not going to get the same effect from a non-controlled situation. Just like your fire chart, those temps are only ever reached in a controlled situation, not a chaotic event where temps would be a lot lower due to many variables that cannot be controlled to create the max effect as they do when testing.

Your arguments are based on stuff you've found on the net that you really don't have the background to fully understand and put in context. Not a personal attack but an observation, because you seem very determined to spread the lies of the OS when sadly you fail to fully understand what you're claiming to be the truth.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Even a child could understand just by looking at it that it was a controlled demolition. Even a long time later and live on camera, Building 7 just instantly free falls into a standard demolition collapse.
There's visual and sound proof plus credible witnesses.
But, you don't even need all that proof that the towers where a demolition.
If this was a court case on property damage, any judge with a brain would call for proof that it wasn't demolition. Not that it was. Every expert in demolition or building fires will agree!



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing Nightmare
 


Nano Thermite took down the WTC:

gideon.sulekha.com...



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I see nothing that supports your position, other than your personal belief in your position.

Rational people understand that this is not any kind of support at all.

Looks like you wasted your time.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gamma 49
reply to post by okbmd
 

Buildings just don't fall in there footprint. The only buildings ive ever seen that duplicate the wtc falling have been demoed. Most of you people still believe a bunch of flunkies pulled a fast one and got over the nas and the feds and the cia and our deffence grid.
Come on wake up this was set up from the start. Our own goverment did this . All you ever get is one bs storie after another, the goverment owns every aspect of the media. Most people have a very short memory they got away with killing kennedy oh i forgot ozwald was the lone gunmen "RIGHT" The people in this country wont even admit the whats true even though it is in plane view for them to see.



whoa dont forget the hijacked plane drill plans running that day, statigicly placed president in class with kids on TV. All in a single day, the same day where a skyscraper had structual failure and colapsed because fire for the first time EVER....not once not twice but three times. Wait thats the same fire that didnt manage to burn a paper or plastic ID from the same hijacked plane that was not found along with 8 black boxes, which is another FIRST in which both black boxes were "not found" from a plane crash. And that happened not once ...not twice ... not three time ... but four times that same day. I would have to rule out logic to follow that story... but thats why i laugh at anyone who thinks thats what happened.


[edit on 2-6-2010 by NO-USE]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Looks like you wasted your time.


According to you, and with your posting history I don't think anyone but your friends pay much attention to your garbage.

Typical reply from you, someone who does not understand the concepts I'm talking about, if you did you would have posted an intelligent reply but instead you just cop out as usual.

You seem to be around here so much you reply to my posts almost instantly, who's wasting their time? Is replying as you did above, to 'crazy conspiracy loons', a great use of your time?
You seem incredibly desperate to knock down anything that contradicts your precious OS. You obviously have no other life, at least during office hours.


I'm wasting my time? lol..



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

According to you


And any rational person, yes. Truthers, since they are not rational, see zero fault in you providing zero support for any of your beliefs.

No surprise there. At all.


Typical reply from you, someone who does not understand the concepts I'm talking about, if you did you would have posted an intelligent reply but instead you just cop out as usual.


Reply to what? You've provided zero support for your statements. Therefore, I have no way to know jusy how you've reasoned yourself into your embarassing statements.

There's zero logic to your contradictory beliefs:

1- You say - symmetrical collapse proves there was no resistance.

2- I say - it fell slower than free fall, proving resistance

3- you say - I know it fell slower than freefall, but the symmetry proves there was no resistance


Is replying as you did above, to 'crazy conspiracy loons', a great use of your time?


Yes. It provides me with a good laugh at all the desperate and lying loons


You seem incredibly desperate to knock down anything that contradicts your precious OS.


So then you admit that you have been debunked. Good for you.


You obviously have no other life, at least during office hours.


What office? Offices are soooooo 2005.


I'm wasting my time? lol..


Not at all.

I'm quite sure it provides some outlet for all the truther angst you feel.

This is a good place to let it out so that your family and friends don't have to listen to the insanity.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

RESISTANCE seems to be the one thing that you debunkers are afraid of. None of you ever offer an explanation, other than silly stuff like 'it was gravity', or some even claim there was resistance but can't explain why the resistance they claim was there didn't slow the collapse wave or cause an asymmetry in the collapse?


The collapse wave fell at slower than free fall speeds. The only way something that can fall slower than free fall speeds is to have something offering resistance to the force of gravity. Since the buildings fell at slower than free fall speeds I believe that the collapse was slowed by resistance from undamaged floors of the building. It's either that or magic or giant rubber bands and I don't think either of those happened.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Has anyone seen this video?

It does seem like some type of explosion, but I'm not as sold on that idea as I once was.

Any ideas?




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

The collapse wave fell at slower than free fall speeds. The only way something that can fall slower than free fall speeds is to have something offering resistance to the force of gravity. Since the buildings fell at slower than free fall speeds I believe that the collapse was slowed by resistance from undamaged floors of the building. It's either that or magic or giant rubber bands and I don't think either of those happened.


How many times do I have to say this, the resistance from the building would not be measured in seconds, it takes work and energy to collapse floors, work and energy creates friction, undamaged structure offers resistance (remember they were designed to hold their own weight by at least x2). The floors would not fail instantly if it all, this is just an assumption that you cannot support with science.

Show me a link that proves your claim is possible.

Here's one for you...


The conservation of momentum is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass. Momentum is defined to be the mass of an object multiplied by the velocity of the object. The conservation of momentum states that, within some problem domain, the amount of momentum remains constant; momentum is neither created nor destroyed, but only changed through the action of forces as described by Newton's laws of motion.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

And again, as you obviously didn't look the other time I posted it...

schools-wikipedia.org...

If you understand the basics of colliding bodies, and put it in context, you will understand complete symmetrical global failure is impossible.
Demolition companies know this, their whole business is based on it.



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Sounds like boom boom boom crackle boom boom boom crackle boom boom boom crackle... really fast though.

there are other videos which clearly show flashes on the outer wall of the WTC before and during its collapse.

I think mnemeth1 or w/e that guys name was did analysis on it.

Here it is.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



EDIT: ADDED VIDEO from thread posted.

[edit on 6/7/2010 by ugie1028]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
firemen, police officers and FBI agents arent experts on what sounds like an explosion, those popping sounds while the towers collapse would have been floors slamming into each other, hence the sounds from one to the next speeded up. And the noises which sounded like explosions long before the towers collapse would have been steel beams dropping a quarter mile into other steel beams and concrete. But i do believe the firemen and police who say in videos an explosive device has been found.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Night_Hawk_Uk
 
every culture and country have ancient prophecies of a future evil world leader disappearing into the past while humanity step into a golden era



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegreatestone
firemen, police officers and FBI agents arent experts on what sounds like an explosion, those popping sounds while the towers collapse would have been floors slamming into each other, hence the sounds from one to the next speeded up....


Are you kidding? Firemen can't tell the difference between explosions and floors impacting each other?

Which btw didn't happen, watch the video, where did the stack of steel floor pans go? The concrete turned to dust, so how did they impact anything?

Read this on the floor live load ratings...


The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail. This indicates that the WTC 1 design had lots of redundancy. This was no house of cards. Could fires burning on only 13% of floor 97 cause 75% of the columns to fail simultaneously? Science says no way...

911research.wtc7.net...

Also floors slamming into each other wouldn't make a sharp popping sound like explosives, that sound would have much less 'attack' to it and more 'decay' if you know what that means in the context of audio.

[edit on 6/19/2010 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join