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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 28
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Oh yeah, he's a tool. He has the bloodline. He has the pedigree.
We, as the dispensables we are, must get smarter.
and remain on topic.
Did I mention that air pressure and some diesel fuel blew up the entire WTC complex? Of course, some office furniture and some Chinese combustible curtains were the Coup de grace.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Haha talk about being on fire! You go Boi!

They're all related, far as I can tell...rule by DNA, sheesh, that's sooo Dark Ages!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're right, we agree, but I thought that controlled demolitions made a building fall more into its footprint, not out of it. What happened to that argument? (or did it just switch around?)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


They had to put on a show, can't make it too obvious. Shawk n' augh and all that.

These are pragmatic psychopathic scumbags who think we simple folk are on a par with insects if you can judge by their actions.

Try to think of it as a movie set (it was).



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're right, we agree, but I thought that controlled demolitions made a building fall more into its footprint, not out of it. What happened to that argument? (or did it just switch around?)


I thought CONTROLLED meant it did what the designer wanted it to do.

psik



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're right, we agree, but I thought that controlled demolitions made a building fall more into its footprint, not out of it. What happened to that argument? (or did it just switch around?)


I thought CONTROLLED meant it did what the designer wanted it to do.

psik


Well, yes, but I was just confused since usually the argument is that the towers fell into their footprint, and many truthers use that as a basis for their claim that they had to have been controlled. I was just wondering if now this means that both sides of the argument exist, saying that falling both inside and outside of the footprint means that it was a controlled demolition. It just seems like a sketchy way to argue to me.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well, then obviously the towers did not fall in their footprint. Debris was spread all over the Trade Center complex.


BINGO!

Then they didn't collapse the way you are all claiming did they? Your hypothesis requires floors to be still in the footprint, you can't have floors being ejected away from the building AND have the floors do any crushing of other floors, or themselves or whatever. Not enough energy mate, thus there HAD to be some other energy acting on the towers other than gravity.

Do you see this now?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're right, we agree, but I thought that controlled demolitions made a building fall more into its footprint, not out of it. What happened to that argument? (or did it just switch around?)


I thought CONTROLLED meant it did what the designer wanted it to do.

psik


Nope, controlled means it was not natural, in other words someone initiated the collapse. Any kind of collapse purposely initiated can be considered a controlled collapse.

An 'implosion demolition' is the correct term for a demolition that causes the building to fall into its footprint.


edit on 3/15/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well, then obviously the towers did not fall in their footprint. Debris was spread all over the Trade Center complex.


BINGO!

Then they didn't collapse the way you are all claiming did they? Your hypothesis requires floors to be still in the footprint, you can't have floors being ejected away from the building AND have the floors do any crushing of other floors, or themselves or whatever. Not enough energy mate, thus there HAD to be some other energy acting on the towers other than gravity.

Do you see this now?


BINGO YOUR A***

They were 1450 ft tall because of this and the FLOOR CONSTRUCTION thats why the debris looked like it did, CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS ARE CONFINED TO A SMALL AREA DOH!!! Thats the point of a controlled demolition!!!!

Also you do remember how the South Tower collapse started DONT YOU!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I don't think I've ever seen anyone besides Truthers saying that it fell inside its footprint. Now it feels like you are creating an opposition just to say that you are right.

In the collapse, doesn't it make sense that it is uncontrolled? I mean, the debris is going everywhere and only ejecting itself after it has been destroyed by the progressive collapse. It follows the path of least resistance, which almost like dropping a giant bowling ball through the center of the towers, causes an almost splashing effect of the material. Since we know that there was a lot of weight coming down and that it had to have been focused mostly near the core (probably because the elevator shafts provided an area of lesser resistance), that comparison can be used to better understand what's going on, except that instead of a bowling ball mass being added to the building, the top of the building is the ball, and it destroys its way down, the extra kinetic energy shooting to the side where the air offered a path of lesser resistance.

I know I haven't articulated the above paragraph perfectly, but just try to understand the picture I'm trying to paint in order to get a basic idea of the physics involved.

In fact, the widespread damage contradicts a controlled demolition. Sure, you could argue that it was a controlled initiation, but there was nothing controlled about the collapse, and since we have an alternative initiation that requires no imagination to find (the plane, damage, and fire), this controlled demo stuff seems more and more like fantasy.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Valerie , debunkers like you are REALLY annoying .
9 11 was an inside job and no matter how much you persist to troll noone pays heed to ANYTHING you say .

Just thought you should know !



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by Varemia
 

Valerie , debunkers like you are REALLY annoying .
9 11 was an inside job and no matter how much you persist to troll noone pays heed to ANYTHING you say .

Just thought you should know !


How am I trolling? Is it just because I don't agree with your views?

That isn't trolling. It's arguing, and if anything, you all should welcome an opposition because it gives you the chance to validate your claims and back them up rather than just having them accepted as fact by everyone right up front.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by Varemia
 

Valerie , debunkers like you are REALLY annoying .
9 11 was an inside job and no matter how much you persist to troll noone pays heed to ANYTHING you say .

Just thought you should know !


How am I trolling? Is it just because I don't agree with your views?

That isn't trolling. It's arguing, and if anything, you all should welcome an opposition because it gives you the chance to validate your claims and back them up rather than just having them accepted as fact by everyone right up front.



OK Then if you are a real person let me ask you a question ?

Why do you defend the government on 911 and the Loughner case and EVERY other case Ive ever seen you post on ?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


I don't defend the government. I defend the idea that the planes took down the towers. I could care less about the government.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


I don't defend the government. I defend the idea that the planes took down the towers. I could care less about the government.


Yeah well your actions say otherwise chum .

You and others have shown your true colours , you have shown whose side you are on ,

Heres my analysis of 9 11 . It was an inside job . This site has made a lot of money by "supporting" this stance .
People in this forum who dont believe 9 11 was an inside job make me very suspicious .

If you agree it was an inside job then there is NO problem us investigating as WE see fit .



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're right, we agree, but I thought that controlled demolitions made a building fall more into its footprint, not out of it. What happened to that argument? (or did it just switch around?)


I thought CONTROLLED meant it did what the designer wanted it to do.

psik


An 'implosion demolition' is the correct term for a demolition that causes the building to fall into its footprint.


edit on 3/15/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob


An implosion is the result of pressure from all around an object resulting in it being crushed inward.

An implosion is what happened to the plutonium in the Fat Man bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. An implosion is what happens to a submarine that goes to deep. I doubt that any building has ever actually been imploded on the Earths surface.

psik



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


Yeah, an investigation where you already have your conclusions. I bet that you would never accept it if even an independent investigation found no evidence of explosives or foul-play. You'd say that the independents were paid off. You'd say that the government hid the evidence. You'd say that the samples you analyzed were tampered with! I know this for a fact!

You may think this is a war between Truthers and OS supporters, but really it is just an internet argument about the details of that day. There is no benefit in taking sides and getting emotional.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
duplicate
edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


Yeah, an investigation where you already have your conclusions.


So sayeth the guy who will believe anything just as long as enough other people believe it too.



I bet that you would never accept it if even an independent investigation found no evidence of explosives or foul-play. You'd say that the independents were paid off.


I'm not paid. I have no affiliation with the media, government, military or finance. I'm independent. Many independent investigators have conducted their own tests and and have shown evidence of explosives and foul play. We're not paid off, yet you won't even consider we could be right, else you'd attempt to make some sort of coherent argument using the available information and evidence.




You'd say that the government hid the evidence. You'd say that the samples you analyzed were tampered with! I know this for a fact!



No you don't, how can you know that for a "fact"? Speaking strictly for me, if the evidence was validated to be genuine and it led me to a different conclusion, I would change my tune accordingly. If the investigation is hampered by government secrecy and excuses of "national security", then it wouldn't be an independent investigation anyway, would it?


You may think this is a war between Truthers and OS supporters,


It isn't.


but really it is just an internet argument about the details of that day. There is no benefit in taking sides and getting emotional.


Then lets talk about the details of that day, instead of chiding us with emotional pleas to trust the government.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
If this was a gravity based collapse, what could produce enough lateral energy to move multi-ton girders hundreds of feet?
edit on 15-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: yards to feet


Simple.

Watch this.



Then read this.


www.nmsr.org...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join