It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by plube

" ... what kills threads like this is when people provide evidence ...which will never be clear cut but at least is evidence and others contribute nothing...just sayiing it does not make sense...or the proverbial prove it...but they do NOTHING to prove the opposite. "

plube ,

I provided clear and obvious evidence that the angled cuts were made by a cutting torch . And what did you respond with ?

Of course the aluminum needed to be removed to cut the steel , that is a no-brainer .

As for you not being able to make neat and straight cuts with a torch , that is indicative only of your level of skill and experience with torches and is no reflection on the skill and experience of others , such as myself . Just because you can't do it , does not mean that others can't .

Personally , I have no problem whatsoever making a neat and straight cut , and could probably have made a neater cut than the one shown . So , just because you can't do it , don't say it can't be done , thereby dismissing the obvious .

Otherwise , you fall within the same mindset that you are accusing others of , as quoted above .

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
Maybe you'll notice that when they collapse (EVEN WITHOUT WINDOWS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL), a lot of sound happens as well as almost explosive noises. NO EXPLOSIVES.

Explain this away, you so-called truther.

Varemia - nice find! Having "proved" that a building can collapse into dust by taking out a few floors, it was bound to be used by the industry sooner or later.

Apologies if someone has already pointed this out but both buildings appeared to be made of something other than steel. This might be important but I'm no expert.

Another key problem is obvious from the photo below. Notice how, unlike the french demolitions, the top of the building is not falling straight down on the lower floors?

Yes, those are slight problems. However, there is a pdf linked in the videos that explains the physics behind why the Trade Towers still fell.

No amount of math and physics will convince a conspiracy theorist, but it's always worth a try.

>> The first time I ever heard about the "pancake collapse theory" --- it was ME making it. I was in the WTC North Tower on a visit to New York with my soon to be wife. She was talking about the previous attempt on the WTC by the Blind Sheik. She wondered; "could someone take these towers down?"

I am not kidding at all when I say, I thought about it for 30 seconds and said; "Yes, but the most practical way I can think of is a plane loaded with jet fuel -- since the floors are suspended in a bridge-like construction, collapsing at least two floors on the one below, would overwhelm their strength -- once you collapse the floors, the outer walls have nothing to hold them IN."

I absolutely understand the physics involved, and I can visualize things pretty well in my head. The ONLY problem with my theory, was that the inner core would still be standing -- because for the floors to collapse, they must BREAK AWAY from the core -- just because they are falling, does not give them the power to bring down the supports that held up the building.

The fire was well near the top of the building, right? A pancake collapse requires TIME for the floors above to destroy the ones below. It would take at least a minute, and there would be an inner core and you would see PANCAKED FLOORS. If you google some images of pancake collapses, they are ALL occurring after earthquakes or a complete destruction of supports -- and the floors are PANCAKED -- laying like a cake on each other.

What we SAW at the WTC, was floors below being destroyed just as the DUST was falling towards them. It means they either had explosive charges, or were collapsing because of the mighty wind of the floors above. That's why the point of a "free fall collapse" needs to really go in a few thick skulls -- you CANNOT have both a pancake collapse and a FREE FALL collapse, and you need to break away from the supports (in the case of the WTC) -- the outer curtain wall failure can be explained by removing the floors.

What would also help, was pre-cutting or explosive charges on the inner supports.

>> The other thing I was ignorant at the time of, in 2000, was that Jet Fuel, isn't much hotter than a normal office fire, and does not have the heat load necessary to overwhelm the supports. Blasting off insulation would make it HARDER to melt supports as insulation on steel is there to keep normal office fires from spreading -- not to protect steel.

I think I've been over this stuff a hundred times. What I saw on TV does not jibe with the little super computer in my head I use to model physics -- my very first impression was that it was a demolition. Then I tried a bunch of other theories and ideas and came back again to; It was a demolition.

My first suspect was the Mossad -- because before that time, the Bush family was anti-Israel in all their policies. They were backed by the Arabs for 25 years and I didn't see that changing unless they got a lot of dirt on him. I couldn't understand why they would be working together but over time I realized that the animosity between Iran, Israel and the Saudis is just a puppet show for their own people. Just as the Bush family smuggled weapons to the Iranian Mullahs and talked about their heinous acts against America.

But the Mossad could not have pulled this off by themselves. They would need the WTC security teams, they would need NORAD to stand down, they would need the FAA to get rid of some tapes, they might need an insider at the Pentagon. However, they have many, many loyalists in our country and it's the only nation allowed where our laws allow that you can be in both militaries.

Most likely, they were either HELPING the Bush-Cheney crime family or they were getting DIRT on them. The "dancing guys" could have been happy because they had enough to bury George Bush and could have him jumping to their beck and call -- just like he did all through his presidency. It's all a chess game of the elite -- the only rule is not to fight in front of the peons. Don't let anybody figure out that Nations aren't at war against foreign invaders -- they are using threats to control their own populations.

Israel serves an important purpose in the middle east; a threat that keeps tyrants in power. Kashmir is a useless plot of land so that Pakistan can keep it's 95% illiterate population worried about India. North Korea fires some rocket every now and then near Japan -- usually after a huge protest against the US military bases still around their country.

Why does the President of Iran talk so crazy when they DON'T have nukes yet? Because he's just playing the scary puppet for Fox News, and Fox News elevates some po-dunk morons playing at American Taliban protesting a Mosque to scare kids in Saudi Arabia.

15 of the 19 Terrorists got their Visas at a CIA/Consulate in Saudi Arabia while they were on a watch list.

The Christmas Bomber, was already on a watch list and had a Visa, and the State Department wanted to bar that kid from getting on the plane. The CIA used the "active investigation" status to get him on the plane -- advanced explosives and all. Funny that you go to all that trouble and don't even teach the idiot how to set off a charge. Funny that the MEDIA doesn't cover the very plain facts I just stated and that there WAS a Congressional hearing on why the CIA put him on the plane.

The only thing shocking about 9/11 to me now, is that it is part of the status quo--it was merely the latest in a long series of lies. False flag attacks were NOW ADMITTED to have gotten us into both the Vietnam and Korean wars. Try googling; "Lusitania attack exaggerated" or "Gulf of Tonkin" -- it's on the RECORD.

So, if they can kill off 50,000 troops in Vietnam based on a lie -- what is 3,000 dead to distract us from a Stock Market collapse and get us into another war with an oil rich nation?

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by Wolfenz

Yeah, that kind of blew the "heat theory" for me too.

It was SO HOT, that steel melted. If it was that hot -- it would be like a blast furnace -- being 20 feet from the fire would have toasted anyone's hair and skin like a marshmallow.

It was so hot -- yet the windows didn't melt -- they are about 10 feet from those Joist Pins that were supposed to be destroyed by the fire to allow the floors to collapse (all they way around the building -- simultaneously). The insulation was supposed to be stripped off the steel by the blast -- how did some of the windows survive this "sandblasting"?

I look through that opening, and, you can see vertical steel beams standing -- in the PATH of where the plane went through -- which makes sense. An aircraft like that would have 3 very hard points on it -- and they are ALL ENGINES. The rest of the plane would be torn to shreds by a steel beam or concrete wall.

So the plane crashes through the curtain wall, the wings sheer off on some girders, and it catches things on fire. The fire isn't extraordinarily hot for any office, such that people can look out the windows and wave for help. Either that Super Woman survived the blast or they came to the opening through some stairs -- which are at the CORE of the building. The Core was not destroyed by the plane -- just as those steel girders were not destroyed by the plane.

So, if the fire was not that hot, and the plane did not do structural damage,... what brought down the towers?

What is wrong with people, that they can't just look at the video of a surviver waiving out of the opening, near the fire, and see a standing girder in the flight path and say; "Nope, the Bush government theory does not add up"?

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by plube

" ....when have you EVER seen a solid steel core just come straight down on itself...SHOW ME other than the RULE of 9/11 that you so proudly point to.

evey bit of STEEL below where the impact and the FIRE took place would not have been please do not insult the designers and architects of these fabulous buildings. "

plube ,

I am of the opinion that it is these types of arguments that hurt you more than they help you . Look at what you are asking for . You are asking for an exact replication of the events of 9/11 .

You , I , and everyone else here knows that we can't provide you with the exact same results . It just hasn't happened , before or since . And don't refer me to links of the Empire State building , it is not relevant , as they were two totally different constructs .

You , being a structural engineer , should know that you can't compare the two .

There is no way that any of us can show you a "solid steel core" that just came "straight down on itself" . You already know this can't be shown , and that is why you are so adamant about playing this card . But , the only ones that this type of argument will appeal to , are those who just blindly follow the TM wherever it leads . This " no other highrise has ever ..." argument is tired and immature .

This argument only carries a false weight , at best , with those in the TM , who are unable to think for themselves .

No other highrise , BUILT EXACTLY LIKE THE TWIN TOWERS , has ever had an airplane slam into it at 4-500 mph , and then burn , unchecked . PERIOD.

No other "solid steel core" has ever been subjected to the events of that day .

Tell you what plube , you show us ONE (1) building , tube within tube design , using box columns as structural steel , using lightweight floor trusses to hold the perimeter columns to the core columns , that had an airplane impact it at 500mph , that endured that kind of heat from the fire as long as it did ... that did not collapse .

Just one , plube .

As an additional requirement , the building must also be one that the fireproofing was falling off DURING CONSTRUCTION .

If you can meet those requirements , then you will have an audience that is more open to this argument of yours .

"...evey bit of STEEL below where the impact and the FIRE took place would not have been comprimised..."

I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe this statement was made by a structural engineer .

These are my thoughts . Please don't reply with the ridicule , etc., as I am being civil about all this . I'm just of the opinion that your argument is flawed .

As nefermore said , 9/11 is the rule , not the exception . I can't believe that a structural engineer , worth his salt , can't see that .

edit on 9-9-2010 by okbmd because: sentence structure

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by plube
the buildings were constructed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from planes.

Except that claim is not a fact at all, just a truther lie. Care to show where the designers of the WTC made that claim?

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:13 PM
It is not the strauctural engineer part of me that says about the tops pulveriising in to dust.....that was my eyes..go watch the videos again please.

OKL not saying the people can't cut straight with a torch....but the cuts are just too straight especially in a wreckage filled site.

And just cause the towers were hit by planes you fail to ever mention tower 7...but let us all be blind....

PLB i have nothing to say to you as you do not help as stated least Nef and ok OKL have presented a little bit of stuff.

but not one SINGLE one of you have even come close to show how the inner core gave way onto itself...and i cant do that because it just does not happen.

as for the progressive collapse none of you listen to the fact about the mass and how the mass would have needed to accerlerate to cause plasticity and buckling in the structure below.

as for the welds cuts i could concede on that one slightly in some cases...but the debris in the beginning had not even been removed in some cases....but hey i am will to concede a touch on that.

now the reason i come back on people is you say all this stuff but you really dont have a clue in the design structures of the buildings themselves and it shows.

for a progressive collapse to occur there would need to be a simultaneous collapse not just a slow decline due to fire cause the steel to weaken.

and like i say it did not happen once.....twice...but happened to THREE buildings on the same for you three people continue to follow the continue being continue to believe in a FANTASY....ANd i also guaruntee....that i will not be required design a buiding with a Inner core any know why?....because that is not what happened.

we can only go so far and if people choose not to listen then stay ignorant....these building were built near an AIRPORT they had to be designed to take an aircraft is part of building codes.

so I cannot waste all my time trying to show people who....absolutely will not listen to reason in any way shape or form and to call me for it and to say i am not contributing to the thread...IT seems strange to me.

especially went the very ones have contributed soooooo very little.

I dont really care if you see it my way.....and i was providing show that a lot of peole DO NOT believe the way the building came down and i also showed much documnetation and visuals.....but not enough for and i am even going to inculde Nef in this one, dont have a clue.


but hey three building in one day....all steel contruction....all with inner cores...all with fires not hot enough to melt steel. ONE of which did not have a plane hit it.

thank you for listening to eveyone who has....and i know there are many beside the four people in here who just want to derail a thread.

and it is not cause you don't is cause you dont add value.

Nef i do think you need to go back to school though cause the are so many architects and Engineers that utterly and completely do not agree with the OS.

I am definately one of them.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Nice to see a logical mind....starred you for having the courage to see that your original concept of progessive collapse did not make sense and your right about it, would have to be simultaneous for it to induce a progressive collapse....

your desciption of how the floor would respond duriing the collapse is very good and well stated.

It was a horrible crime against humanity and we all need to find the REAL people behind it and i am sure it will lead to a Jewish conection.

This is mass public brainwashing at its finest and if you have been reading this thread you can actually see it working.

Now i want a public outcry on a mass scale for a independant forensic investigation into this crime....that is my is an insult as an Engineer to see these buildings come down in that fashion.

To be told it was due to fire....that three buildings (SKYSCAPERS)built in the path of an Airport....did not have the ability to withstand Airplane hits(STANDARD PRACTICE).

Absolutely an INSULT to the industry...and people wonder why so many of us are fighting this.

edit on 123030p://f29Thursday by plube because: grammar

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by okbmd

just one point here OK your right it can't be shown that an inner core would collapse on itself is because it can't happen once...let alone THREE times and you tell me your in the trade and your telling me that you would do shotty enough work to let that happen during the building prcess but then you also tell me how good you are with a cutting torch.

now that i find hard to belive...very very very....did you know that there is also a large group of Iron workers who are starting to call for answers too cause it is even more of an insult to their trade.

ironworkers speak

very descriptive of how things occur...what i stated earlier


Ironworker who had been been close to the scene before the collapse:
"My partner kept telling me the building is coming down. I'm saying "No Way! No Way!" And the the next thing you know, you heard this noise, I will never forget. It was like creeking, and the next thing you felt the ground rumbling."

Ironworker who attended the '93 attack on the towers:
"I didn't think they were gonna fall. After being there in '93 and seeing the damage that was done, at the bottom of those columns (pause) that was some blast! And I didn't think so at all."

Ironworker who man who had also worked on the construction of the WTC towers:
"When we were putting those towers up, in our wildest dreams (pausing, shaking his head) those towers were built not to fall."

Ironworkers telling of the scene at ground zero:
"We saw some of the thickest steel i have ever seen, bent like a pretzel. And you just couldn't imagine the force that that took."
NOTE: There was a lot of close-up, ground zero, post collapse footage showing the steel beams and powder.

"I don't know if a person who has never been an ironworker could imagine, but uh ... all of this massive iron, I mean pieces that weigh 20 or 50 tons, were all mangled and just crumpled up.

"You couldn't have paid a demolition company to take'em down straighter. You know, it was amazing, didn't really damage .. if they had fallen over sideways, could you imagine the damage to Lower Manhattan."



hmmm firefighters too

once again great info well spelled out and lots of NIST debunking

firefighters for truth[

yet more viewpoints...that i take the time to read...and learn and understand...but i also read the nist reports and also bhouz progressive collapse paper that Varm so proudly presented. I do not come to conclusions easy...and not once have i stated how i personally think they came down here...but i am definately pointing out how they did not come i say IT is an INSULT to the building profession.

just more info

muslims did not do it either and they want answers...wouldn't you if you were being blamed.
(i am not muslim by the way)

think what side of the fence your on because it is important.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by plube
It is not the strauctural engineer part of me that says about the tops pulveriising in to dust.....that was my
Nef i do think you need to go back to school though cause the are so many architects and Engineers that utterly and completely do not agree with the OS.

I am definately one of them.

An independant structural engineers view

Heres an article from Scientific American giving thoughts of MIT professors

Oh look...heres another MIT professor

University of Syndey - World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects

Apparently, these people need to go back to school too?

Maybe these demolition experts need to as well??

A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by neformore

So what we have here is differing opinions by proffessors and Engineers on both side of the grid...would you not Agree.

and your obviously on one side and i am on the otherside of the grid.

so we could post and counter post forever....would you not agree on that also.

but right now i am going to go and read evry bit that you posted as i do on bothsides and i hope you will at least do the same.

cause i too have shown you articles from professionals and even professors too.

I am in school everyday always learning reading and studying even though i have my degrees cause you always need to learn the new techniques and design materials being used today.

so like i said between you and me NEF we need to agree to disagree...and about time you actually posted counters.....i will be back and i will research the sources.

thanks for the post.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Wolfenz
Adding a log !! for People that believes in the Fuel Melting Steel Party...

Which people would that be? And are the present in this thread? If not, why are you posting this?

Go ask these People

The Engineers and Architect's
– Tue Sep 7, 6:54 pm ET

Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Richard Gage, AIA, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Discuss Scientific Findings

National Press Club, Washington DC, 2:00 pm, Thursday, September 9, 2010

145 flags and counting this Thread was put up on the 9th of September

Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by neformore

Enter i have read the entire paper ....quite the work that was based on many many unknowns and quite a bit of faulty assumptions.

i will be doing this one at a please bare with me...but it will prove what i said about point and counter point...and wait till i put together some history on Clifton and how his paper influenced more faulty data sets for

Bazant and Zhou

but here is some reading on your first post....and i hope you enjoy cause i enjoyed reading yours...thanks.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

now lets pick apart his assumptions and false data shall we.

breakdown of erroneauos data by clifton

now you can understand where i am coming i did say earlier...unless all data sets are presented then how can one make a conclusion...i am going off my profeessional knowledge and i don't believe the towers came down in a progressive collapse.

I have stated we could keep going back and forth but you are a professional...i am sure your crunching the numbers yourself as you read these reports...I know I am.

now the photos show the top of the towers toppling which would be the norm....then all of a sudden hmmm...everything from underneaths fails....Does that make sense to your Engineering Brain....not to mind my means not all the mass is even centered over the inner core at that point and as i showed in an earlier document even if it was the mass wass not sufficient to create the progressive collapse senario...would you not agree?

keeping in mind the north tower was hit only 15 floor down from the top...and that is 1/9 of the structure...

if that is the case then the plasticity would only occur maybe another 10 stories down...fair estimate....with out complete data.

but that means it should not have created a complete progressive collapse...please by all means your a civil me out here and do the i had shown a document earlier with all the maths worked out.

ok so that is your first entry i have more read and analysis to do...thanks.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by plube

I honestly have to resist the urge to just blow up and call you a moron without any sense in logic and real life.

However, this is a civil forum and you are just stating your ill-founded opinion in an extremely unsupported rhetorical fashion. All the scientific evidence points toward the pancake effect, the top-down collapse of the buildings, the fire-and-debris caused destructions. The only things that support you are stories, tales, and twistings of the evidence to fit your picture.

Science is not about proving that you are right, but trying to prove that you are wrong. With the official story, every other possibility has been eliminated, and no one has come up with a supportable piece of evidence that proves that their idea is right and that the official story is wrong. Only rhetoric (in this case, unsubstantiated claims and emotional appeals) has been used.

I recall a video posted on this thread that had a construction worker commenting on the tower debris. He said he was surprised to find that floors were "pancaked" together, 14 floors in a few feet. How did this happen if it wasn't a pancake effect collapse?

And again, as for the tilting of the top as it comes down. It is not falling off a solid structure. It is because the structure beneath it is being collapsed as well that the top does not fall over the side. It has no pivot point, only gravity.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Wolfenz

Good lord, using Edna Cintron as evidence are we?

You do realise she jumped as well, right?

Why would she do that, if the fires weren't raging behind her, making it unbearably hot?

yeah she jumped probely she knew that she wasn't going to be saved after that Helicopter Video Taped her ?
wasn't going to save her probably the Helicopter did not go near here fearing the Copter was explode because of the extreme heat but There She is Super woman Edna around the intense heat of say about 300F degrees 600F degrees or More you would think that the flames would expel from the entrance of Impact
Right ? as Oxygen would fuel the Fire especially where the Wings of those planes Hit ! Fuel is carried in the Wings Right ? there is Flames around EDNA as she is Alive and Well at the time I thought that flames would be bigger and Brighter! but all i see at the Entrance of WTC1 is Flames Starving for Oxygen as Kerosene
does not Explode much unlike Gasoline ...
Jet fuel

but there She is standing & waving right at the Entrance belly of the impact of the North tower

would you think she would be engulfed in flames at over 600 degrees (F) let alone 2,000 + (F) and she is wearing fire proof clothing at the time right ? and in the video she still has long hair
Yep using the evidence of Edna is a Perfect example that the Fire Alone did not bring down the Towers
yes there are flames but i can bet that its the fuel of Kerosene burning off the excess at the Point of IMPACT!!
Not much as the Debris you know !! office material PCs, Chairs ,Desks Cubicles Etc... ohh i Forgot Everything just about Turned to Ash except the Steel of Course ! and burned for a few Weeks that must of been Super Jet Fuel!! Right ? Please Explain to be what else could of turned everything to ash ! ? Literately
I don't have to show a Fire Fighters Explaining that they did not find a Chair Desk Etc.. except a large piece Phone Pad do I ? and this is from Jet Fuel ?

I Guess we would have to find out what happens at the Press Club Conference
at 200pm eastern time in Washington DC

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by Wolfenz

Jesus Christ... if there was not a massive fire, then how in the heck was there miles of smoke ejecting from the impact holes?

Sometimes you people.....

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by neformore

I have gone a little deeper on this Eduardo Kausel..and it is all very interesting...thanks for your post yet again...
where do i start...did you know...that this same man that you are promoting has court cases being taken against proclaiming the documents are false.....also that there is a good possibilty.....ok try not to be too suprised....that he was paid by ....guess who...NIST.

ok I am suprised myself but hey i look at all things...i dont just look at the technical side...if you have been following my posts from the start...i said...MOTIVE...this is a crime scene....I do treat it as such....follow the money trail i did say and suprise.

look at it...not quite sucessful yet but they are getting there.


here are the documents stating the case to be brought to court.

read deep i had too

or just google who paid Eduardo Kausel.

now like i say i search deeply and i don not EVER just believe the is full of lies...and i see vare is still spewing nothingness...but i will not acknowledge him anymore till he gets somewhat constructive.

now i will dig into the other MIT professor....wait cause i will get back....the world is not as it seems...i believe in my trade...and i belive in how the towers were constructed....they should have stood...especially WTC7

so you can help to find the truth or you can tow the OS line the choice is yours....

but you see i do take the time to source look and not always in the places you might expect.

while i was doing this i have once....again launch another FOIA request....on the NIST documentatin from another angle...willl see what happens.

so once again thanks for your info...there are two type of people the ones who wish they had done...the the one who do.

i am the latter.

edit on 043030p://f35Thursday by plube because: url edit

edit on 043030p://f38Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by plube

" ...and i belive in how the towers were constructed...."

Great , now , would you care to explain how the towers were constructed ? You don't believe they could have collapsed in the manner that they did . You must have a reason for thinking this way , so maybe , your reason for thinking this might be due to the way that they were constructed ?

Please , if you don't mind , tell us exactly what it was about the construction that causes you to believe the towers could not have collapsed .

Do be advised that there are those of us who have studied the construction and will therefore be countering your reasons for your opinion .

It is my opinion , that the construction type , that was the towers , was the major factor in the destruction of the towers .

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:20 PM
Its hard to comprehend, watching & listening to this video, that the US govt would blow up 3 buildings with THEIR OWN CITIZENS still inside them. But as hard as that may be to accept - thats EXACTLY what they did.

"The bigger the lie - the more people will believe it"

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by plube
but here is some reading on your first post....and i hope you enjoy cause i enjoyed reading yours...thanks.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

But... your site refers to melting steel - its not melting, its weakened and buckling. Big difference. It then goes on to say this

Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways. This seems like common sense, and the analysis of Bazant & Zhou may not be sufficient to disprove it.

Gravity does not push sideways. It pushes straight down. There were no forces capable of tipping the tower sideways. As soon as the upper floors start to move they will come down vertically once the resistance presented by the intact structure is overcome, hence the slight tilt and then straight down drop onto the rest of the building below. If you are the structural engineer you claim to be, then you will know thats the case. If you've read the page you've linked to, then you've either missed that, or simply ignored it to promote your argument. Its junk science and - frankly - is the opinion of the people who wrote the page - none of whom are qualified structural engineers by the look of it.

now lets pick apart his assumptions and false data shall we.

breakdown of erroneauos data by clifton

Sorry, but thats a hack piece, and you know it. Its all over the place. It tries to be clever and then shoots itself in its own foot. It argues against itself, using the analogy that a high speed impact would punch a hole through the building like a bullet passing through glass, and then suggests that the planes would not have penetrated the towers sufficiently to damage the inner core. It can't be both ways.

It also simply ignores the fact that there will have been severe deformation of the building on impact and that, although the outer box sections would have provided some resistance to the impact anything passing through the initial impact points will still be moving at the speed of the plane until it is arrested by sufficient mass to slow/stop it.

And then further down it says this....

The reason that the above photo, and others from the same video, are favorites with those defending the official line, is that the Millennium hotel hides the rows of explosions (which initiate the collapse) from view.

Oh really?

Then this....

Only a massive redistribution of load would have lead to vertical sagging. There is no reason to believe this happened.

No reason to believe a massive redistribution of load happened, just after 150 tonnes of jet aircraft has punched a hole through the structural bracing outer columns of a building travelling at over 400mph.

Oh yes....and it also tries to prove a point using a simulation it then tries to debunk.

now you can understand where i am coming from

Yes. You are ignoring the contradictions in the evidence you are presenting - which is highly speculatory in its nature - because it suits your case to do so.

Thats not science. Thats cooking the books.

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Could you please not be so patronizing...we both know how they were built how will this help....would you like me to post a link like i haven't done that already over and over .

the question is why three steel structures came down which had never happen before the OS story is not from the impacts but from FIRE...your an Iron worker or the could be an asumption on my part but i am giving you know how much heat is required to cut know how much heat is require to melt aluminium.

when a plane crashes the jet fuel does not even usually have long enough burn time to melt the very Aluminium at 660c and you still believe it would have melted steel in 56mins.

not going spend much more time trying to show things to people in this i now see the ignorance...and it cannot be denied.

but maybe check out this stuff...might help.

a bunch of crackpots i guess

or maybe even some very indepth research here.

possibly all wrong though

anyways you said you just want to thats how you behave when people don't agree.

And Vare said something in the line of i juat want to blow i see how he behaves when people disagree.

when i disagree i show possibilities...but people don't like wwhen they might have to show things themselves.

but the courts are starting to get requests...things about how NIST behaved are coming to light....hopefully with enough pressure a real INVESTIGATION will take place.

all this time in this thread is I believe the steel structures should not have reacted the way they did..just as many many many other professionals agree.

as i pointed out follow the money trails.

some people look for the truth and some deny the truth.....i am moving on from this thread....have spent loads of time researching presenting credible rebuttles...and getting rediculous non substantiated replies...but if people bothered to read what i post like i do with what links have been provided to me...with a fine tooth comb.

then we might get somewhere.

now if you will notice i don't ever repaste quotes...cause that would become personal attacks...which i see gets used all the time....if you reply people if they bother to follow a thread will know where it comes from.

should look deep into some of the links i have might be Enlightening.

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in