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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 21
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
hijacking an airplane with only little knifes


I'd like to see you defend yourself from box cutters (which, BTW, are incredibly sharp, and will slice a jugular vein easily) in a suprise attack, strapped into a seat facing the other direction, while trying to fly a plane.

Yeah, you wouldn't last 10 seconds.




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
FDNY... the brainwashing is strong in this one...


No, the first-hand experience and years of firefighting knowledge is stong in this one.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 

Have you ever seen solid steel turn into liquid steel in your years of firefighting experience?


edit on 16-3-2011 by finalword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
Even if there was a collapse, it would have been a localized collapse. It would not have "pancaked" all the way down the entire building.


Bazant et al. have already shown that was not possible. The collapse, once began, could not have been stopped.


Originally posted by finalword

And if it was merely a collapse, why was all of the concrete in the towers pulverized into a fine dust? A collapse does not pulverize. At most the concrete would have broken into chunks.


You do realize that concrete is relitively fragile compared to hundreds of tons of dynamic loads, right?

BTW, here is some of your concrete chunks.


And a car.



Originally posted by finalword
Go get yourself a job at the CIA or something.


I already do!! Muh ha ha ha ha ha ha.......



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by finalword
 


There was no molten steel in the towers... sigh. How many times does that have to get repeated?

One, you cannot determine what kind of metal it is just because it is red hot. Two, you have not specified whether you are talking about the melted metal before the collapse or after. Before the collapse, the metal was clearly aluminum or some other low temperature melting metal, considering there was other metal in the towers plus the airplane parts.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
reply to post by Varemia
 

Pulverizing concrete requires significantly more energy than simply having it break into chunks.

911research.wtc7.net...


But takes VERY little energy to create drywall dust.

In fact, there were some 43,000 pieces of drywall just on the outer perimeter of the WTC towers. That does not include any for the core, which could be in the range of 25,000 pieces for both towers.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
reply to post by FDNY343
 

Have you ever seen solid steel turn into liquid steel in your years of firefighting experience?


edit on 16-3-2011 by finalword because: (no reason given)


No,. But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Things get repeated because there may be some truth behind it. Before or after is completely irrelevant. The fact that there was molten liquid of any kind should be suspicious.
911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by FDNY343
 

Well, one of the architects of the towers said that they could probably sustain multiple impacts from 707s.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Ben81
hijacking an airplane with only little knifes


I'd like to see you defend yourself from box cutters (which, BTW, are incredibly sharp, and will slice a jugular vein easily) in a suprise attack, strapped into a seat facing the other direction, while trying to fly a plane.

Yeah, you wouldn't last 10 seconds.



omg .. that wasnt ur reply ... im blind by the madness of it
like a hundreds people in the plane would be scare of the little knife .. im sure many would sacrifice their life and go against the little box cutter

sorry this is just an IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Not sure about the whole... 9/11 tie in... But for what it is worth, sky scrapers are designed to sway like that. It actually makes them stronger... If they were stiff and unable to bend, they would break really easily and would not be able to build these things so tall...

Even the WTC swayed like that. Ever been on top of them before they collapsed? You would not say that they did not sway if you had.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Ben81
hijacking an airplane with only little knifes


I'd like to see you defend yourself from box cutters (which, BTW, are incredibly sharp, and will slice a jugular vein easily) in a suprise attack, strapped into a seat facing the other direction, while trying to fly a plane.

Yeah, you wouldn't last 10 seconds.



What about a banana? Passion fruit? What about a pointed stick?

What would you do if you saw a few guys with box cutters who were going to kill you and the other passengers as far as you knew? Would you go take it like a sheep like all the military leathernecks did on 77 or would you brave the box cutters and go all let's roll on they asses like the civilians on 93?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 





Bazant et al. have already shown that was not possible. The collapse, once began, could not have been stopped.


It was destiny then, is that the story? Because I find it easier to believe this Bazant et al guy lied (sounds islamofascist!) than I can believe the laws of nature were suspended.




You do realize that concrete is relitively fragile compared to hundreds of tons of dynamic loads, right? BTW, here is some of your concrete chunks.


Nice shot...I see some chunks, sure enough. But mostly I see tiny chunks of what used to be a massive building surrounded by pulverized concrete. Man, who needs a nuclear bomb when you've got a Boeing.

That concrete had already been holding all those hundreds of tons for decades.

Folks, anyone out there with any sense? Look at his picture...good grief...do any of you know how hard concrete is to break up? There was a school demolished near here a couple years ago...asbestos, sound familiar?...anyway, it was concrete and it took MANY WEEKS with HEAVY machinery to break that thing up...you know, machinery MEANT to break up concrete...big wrecking balls, big chippers. This was a two story structure we're talking about.

The idea that the building would collapse to dust like that is impossible. Even if the upper floors were damaged by a plane (they weren't), the floors below the damage had already been holding up the weight above them, so there was no added strain on them except the weight of the plane, for which the buildings were over engineered to handle. The jet fuel was burnt off on impact in the fireball leaving people and office furniture to burn and melt steel. Also impossible. There must be a better explanation.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Ben81
hijacking an airplane with only little knifes


I'd like to see you defend yourself from box cutters (which, BTW, are incredibly sharp, and will slice a jugular vein easily) in a suprise attack, strapped into a seat facing the other direction, while trying to fly a plane.

Yeah, you wouldn't last 10 seconds.



What about a banana? Passion fruit? What about a pointed stick?

What would you do if you saw a few guys with box cutters who were going to kill you and the other passengers as far as you knew? Would you go take it like a sheep like all the military leathernecks did on 77 or would you brave the box cutters and go all let's roll on they asses like the civilians on 93?




The point is that, except in the case of UA 93 , the passengers didn't know the hi-jackers were planning to kill them. Given historical hi-jackings they would have expected to be landed and for the hi-jackers to isue demands.

Passengers of UA 93, the last flight, had time to learn from telephone conversations of their probable fate and the cockpit voice recording and phone calls are proof of their fight back.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

Even if there was a collapse, it would have been a localized collapse. It would not have "pancaked" all the way down the entire building.

And if it was merely a collapse, why was all of the concrete in the towers pulverized into a fine dust? A collapse does not pulverize. At most the concrete would have broken into chunks.

Go get yourself a job at the CIA or something.


At the internet armchair construction expert DO YOU KNOW how much damage was done due to the impact, fuel exploding and then the fire and of course all the sheetrock would not have caused any dust the trouble with you guys YOU dont consider all the components of this event.

Prime example the dust its always concrete YOU never consider the sheetrock then with you finalword all your snidy little remarks THAT really show what you are.

Do you even think about the concrete which is a floor mix not a structural grade and the simple fact its falling hundreds of feet.

I been in construction industry for 32 years so how long have you worked at your fast food employer!



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Is that the point? Because my point is the story's a bunch of hogwash without any evidence to back it up.

Until there's a shred of evidence to support such tripe, it should be in the fiction section.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by finalword
FDNY... the brainwashing is strong in this one...


No, the first-hand experience and years of firefighting knowledge is stong in this one.



What a guy, not only is he a firefighter, but he's an eye witness.




My eyes don't lie to me. I saw the second impact with my own two eyes. They don't typically lie to me about something like that. Not to mention the thousands of other people that were around that said "Holy **** a plane just hit!!" I heard the jet, saw the jet, saw the explosion from the fuel, and felt the tremble. Sorry, CGI don't leave part strewn all about.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Is that the point? Because my point is the story's a bunch of hogwash without any evidence to back it up.

Until there's a shred of evidence to support such tripe, it should be in the fiction section.


You can say that you reject evidence , although it would be as well to say why, but to claim there isn't a shred of evidence is just silly and is unlikely to win you any adherents.

This is a shred of evidence, Cleveland air traffic control recording of attempts to contact UA 93. When the hi-jacker thought he was advising the passengers that there was a bomb on board he was also broadcasting and his words are on the Cleveland tape :-

www.youtube.com...

This would have been another factor in restraining passengers and may well have been duplicated on the other flights.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
Things get repeated because there may be some truth behind it. Before or after is completely irrelevant. The fact that there was molten liquid of any kind should be suspicious.
911research.wtc7.net...


No, it's not at all suspicious. There are plently of metals that melt below 1500 deg. F that would have been found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC towers.

Aluminum and tin being two.




Originally posted by finalword
Well, one of the architects of the towers said that they could probably sustain multiple impacts from 707s.


Wonderful. Since we know the WTC DID in fact sustain and SURVIVE the impacts of a 767, we can reasonably conclude that a 707 ( which is about 30 feel shorter wingtip to wingtip, about 30 feet shorter from nose to tail, and weighs about 40,000 lbs lighter) I would imagine it is possible too.

But, that is (i'm assuming anyway) an off-the-cuff statement, and not something that was actually analyzed. But, feel free to prove me wrong.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81omg .. that wasnt ur reply ... im blind by the madness of it
like a hundreds people in the plane would be scare of the little knife .. im sure many would sacrifice their life and go against the little box cutter

sorry this is just an IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO


Impossible for someone to hijack a plane?

Nonsense.

Impossible to kill a pilot with a razor knife?

Nonsense.

What part is impossible?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

The japanese skyscrapers didnt have any imbedded bombs to facilitate falling either.




new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join