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: 32
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Read the thread.

The story stays the same.


I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Is it that you don't have answers, realize if you actually answer the questions your position will be exposed as absurd or are you simply refusing to answer? Which, ironically, is exactly what you accused me of, just a few posts ago.

I'm not dismissing you, I am asking you to explain your beliefs.

P.S. I may walk away from my computer to attend to family needs, etc. It may be several minutes to a day or two until I can respond but, I will.
edit on 27-3-2011 by SlightlyAbovePar because: Added the P.S.




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Yes .. maybe you are right
but that doesnt change the fact

THE 9/11 OFFICIAL VERSION WAS A LIE

of course we are still speculating on many theories
we are still unsure about what really happened
we didnt receive a truthfull version
and there is so many coincidences not to be a lie
our human brain try to balance it with common sens

because we know that planes CANT make huge steel tower fall done to the ground a few minute after the hit

even if the fire of the plane inside the building would had melted certain part of the steel structure .. it wouldnt cause the building to fall down perfectly like this

all people that think that this wasnt a controlled demolition ... they need to verify their IQ .. ASAP
for our future generation sake

ALLONS Y
edit on 3/27/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
They needed to demolish the WTC which was a white elephant no one wanted to rent, and because of environmental issues, no one wanted to pay to repair.



Ah yes, it was an environmental issue. Thats why they took two large airliners and plowed them into the WTCs, and then had them collapse, spewing out tons and tons and tons of dust, burning materials, containing many many hazardous materials, which have been affecting first responders' health to this very day, and even killed some. Also the clean up of all that fine dust and powder which blanketed nearly all of southern Manhattan like a snow storm, or an ash cloud, causing resperatory illneses to those that breathed it in.

yes yes, it was very well planned out to be environmentally removed.
I guess the old fashoned way of removing "hazardous" materials like asbestos from buildings was too much work. It worked out much better this way right?



Dont spit on my cupcake and call it sprinkles.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451 I wrote he was a witness who described a missile. Was I wrong? Why did you need to add more than what I wrote?

Classic Quote Mining. Your general assertion that he describes something he said sounded like a missile is correct. However, he did not say he saw a missile.


He is also just one of many. But you know that.

If you quote mine, yes I see your point. There are others who describe the speed & sound of the approaching planes as “like missles”, not that they actually observed missles. Besides that, for goodness sakes, the second plane hit live on T.V.! Or, was that faked too?


Like I've said before, just once I'd like to see one of you weak OSers answer a couple of the dozen questions I've laid on you.

Fire away.


All you gus do is post tripe in an obvious effort to put as much fluff on the thread as possible so the readers will miss the important posts. You can't prove a lie...the more you try, the more you help my case.

Actually, no, I’m not trying to prove a lie. Why are you making this a personal issue? Because I (or others in this case) disagree with you, we’re lying? Are we ‘in on it’ too?
edit on 27-3-2011 by SlightlyAbovePar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I wrote he was a witness who described a missile. Was I wrong? Why did you need to add more than what I wrote?


Yes, because hearing a noise that sounds like a missile and physically seeing a missile are two very different things.


He is also just one of many. But you know that.

No, I don't know that. Enlighten me, please.


Like I've said before, just once I'd like to see one of you weak OSers answer a couple of the dozen questions I've laid on you.


Did you even finish reading my post? I thought I had tried to answer some of your questions:


Also, again, the plane didn't hit quite dead center. Sure, it hit perpendicular (and now I am on the same page. I do apologize about not knowing which tower you were talking about), but it was not level with the ground. It was tilted. That means that since parts of the floors would have the trusses and the concrete, those parts would offer a 'bit' more resistance, wouldn't you imagine? I mean, I haven't fully analyzed the picture, but it would not surprise me if the floors were where the least damage to the exterior was.

-----Stop this BS and show me on the NIST damage report how that corner was damaged when their own report shows no damage there, and no damage to the North side at all. Will someone please admit this? Anyone with any courage out there?-----

Like I said, I actually haven't read the NIST report. That kind of time is the time I feel like I don't have to waste between my job, my schooling, and my attempts to get a girlfriend. Yes, according to the picture you have there, NIST did not include damage to the North side. I would imagine that perhaps they were focusing on the damage caused just by the structural impact of the plane. I'm not certain on that point though. Don't go crazy.


Please, let me know where I've gone wrong in answering you, unless you are trying to ask for an expert opinion which would be impossible for me to give, since I am not an expert. Don't ask something of others that you cannot provide yourself.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Interesting story.

Lets cut through the clutter. The reason Japanese buildings didn't fall is because they didn't have to contend with anything like what happened in Manhattan.

This was an earlier post directed at WMD and hastily ignored by all but the hapless thedman.

Anyone else is welcome to make an attemt at a serious discussion...even you Gen.




Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores

Modern Skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core, a reinforced concrete tower, contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structures: a lightweight aluminum and glass curtain wall encloses the building.
More reasons to believe there were concrete cores. Anyone curious about the concrete cores of the WTC will like this site. It contains after destruction photos and much more. algoxy.com...

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.
algoxy.com...

It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.
www.ncsea.com...

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
Blythe Reasons to doubt a plane: The damage does not support a wing slicing from the center-out. It shows damage to the columns on the left side, not the right; this indicates an outside-in damage pattern. A missile can explain the damage much better than a plane as the pictures show.
It neglected the significant damage to the East side as shown from a screenshot from the Naudet film:
The damage to the corner as shown below, is visible from multiple angles and cameras. You have not attempted to explain how a jet can cause this damage. You prefer to make me explain my theory again. I have done this ad nausea and I for one would like some reciprocity.
So-called scientific papers have been given by the OS faithful in an attempt to prove that an aluminum wing tip can slice through laterally reinforced structural steel columns. I have shown how these papers are simply propaganda wrapped in trigonometry, but you chose to avoid that discussion. You avoid the simplest of questions: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.

So the wing mass, most of which is between the engine and the fuselage has now been equally distributed to the whole wing. All of the material used for support is now used to create a 34.5 mm thick wing-shaped box of aluminum for the sake of their model. Is this an accurate and fair representation to begin this test with?
Faked video and photographs. When given the opportunity to prove your case using the photographs themselves, so the readers can see for themselves, you resort to a weak blanket dismissal and offer no explanation using your own words seasoned with your "thirty years' photography experience. It appears a team of photographers was deployed to document the event, and over the years the Intelligence services release their photos to the public as propaganda. Here is a link which breaks down the perspective of each known photographer: the last 12 seconds Here are examples of Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehl and Robert Clark's work:
killtown.blogspot.com... Here is a thorough discussion of the video manipulation and how it was implemented on live TV (it's not that hard): letsrollforums.com... Since you resorted to mocking my sources instead of showing how their information was wrong, I provided my own work to expose how the Naudet film released in 2002, contained Courchesne footage released in 2004 (as far as we know): Naudet from 2002:
Courchesne from 2004:
www.abovetopsecret.com... This leaves the "Planers" with what? Faked video and false eyewitnesses like FDNY343. In light of the fact that to believe a jet existed you need to ignore all the above, why haven't you reconsidered your position?
edit on 26-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
WTC 7 had no reason to fall...save for insurance reasons and whatever records were contained. It was planned...and WTC 7 is the smoking gun...


Wouldn't it be easier to just use a paper shredder and a delete button on a keyboard?

Also, you don't think that a steel-framed structure that burns for 7 hours (2.5 x's is SFRM rating) and was unfought by any firefighter in NYC, could collapse?

I think the fire department in Charleston SC might disagree with you. And every other fire department in the world for that matter.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



For folks really interested in what happened, for starters there's an depth discussion here:

letsrollforums.com...

Video archives here:

www.911conspiracy.tv...

And there's Leslie Raphael's work here:

frankresearch.info...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MemoryShock
WTC 7 had no reason to fall...save for insurance reasons and whatever records were contained. It was planned...and WTC 7 is the smoking gun...


Do you seriously believe that anyone would murder the best part of 3000 people for an insurance payout ?


Yes. I do.

Do we want to research the history of the tenants of WTC 7? Because I am prepared...do we also want to assume that people won't rationalize each other for money (hint-history is filled with it)...

Sorry...I call shenanigans and I have looked all over...find me a way that WTC 7 collapsed in the same way as the twin towers without being hit by a plant...they all fell the same way with different circumstances...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Also, you don't think that a steel-framed structure that burns for 7 hours (2.5 x's is SFRM rating) and was unfought by any firefighter in NYC, could collapse?

I think the fire department in Charleston SC might disagree with you. And every other fire department in the world for that matter.


There was no fire on WTC 7 that rivaled the twin towers...yet they all fell the same...screw the fire department's opinion in this case...though hail the sacrifice of their brothers...



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Also, you don't think that a steel-framed structure that burns for 7 hours (2.5 x's is SFRM rating) and was unfought by any firefighter in NYC, could collapse?


You should know by now it's not necessarily that the building collapsed but the way it collapsed, even though no it should not have collapsed from several hours of fire.

The only way you can make a building fall mostly in its own footprint is implosion demolition. No building, no matter how long it is on fire, can fall into its own footprint from fire alone. The outer walls can not end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse. It takes a special process known as implosion demolition.


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it *[they must be lying, just set fire to it].

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward *[Penthouse kink].

science.howstuffworks.com...





Why do you keep ignoring the facts to wallow in fantasy? How can you keep ignoring the facts that the collapse of WTC 7 fell exactly as an implosion demolition is designed to do?

Please think about what the chances are of that happening from fire alone, seriously.


edit on 3/27/2011 by ANOK because: WTC7wasancontrolleddemolition



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by TheIsraelite777
 


Clutching at straws with that then are you not its the vapour that ignites not the liquid and the plane has seperate tanks or DID you not know that.


I did. But that guy clearly had an hallucination due to stress. I would too if I'd heard a plane crash into the building I was in.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MemoryShock
WTC 7 had no reason to fall...save for insurance reasons and whatever records were contained. It was planned...and WTC 7 is the smoking gun...


Do you seriously believe that anyone would murder the best part of 3000 people for an insurance payout ?


Yes. I do.

Do we want to research the history of the tenants of WTC 7? Because I am prepared...do we also want to assume that people won't rationalize each other for money (hint-history is filled with it)...

Sorry...I call shenanigans and I have looked all over...find me a way that WTC 7 collapsed in the same way as the twin towers without being hit by a plant...they all fell the same way with different circumstances...


You are 100% correct.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Sorry...I call shenanigans and I have looked all over...find me a way that WTC 7 collapsed in the same way as the twin towers without being hit by a plant...they all fell the same way with different circumstances...


Not quite. 7WTC fell from the bottom up, while the WTC Towers fell from the impact points, down.

So, other than that, yeah, they are the same.......



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by FDNY343
Also, you don't think that a steel-framed structure that burns for 7 hours (2.5 x's is SFRM rating) and was unfought by any firefighter in NYC, could collapse?

I think the fire department in Charleston SC might disagree with you. And every other fire department in the world for that matter.


There was no fire on WTC 7 that rivaled the twin towers...yet they all fell the same...screw the fire department's opinion in this case...though hail the sacrifice of their brothers...


Which is why the WTC towers fell in much less time. It only took the Sofa store in SC 47 minutes to fail and completly collapse.

But, I mean, yeah, they fell the same.......



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You should know by now it's not necessarily that the building collapsed but the way it collapsed, even though no it should not have collapsed from several hours of fire.


Please feel free to google "Charleston SC sofa store fire" and start reading. You will find stuff that proves this incorrect.


Originally posted by ANOK

The only way you can make a building fall mostly in its own footprint is implosion demolition.


Gravity is another. Oh, wait, CD'ed buildings fall because of gravity too.


Originally posted by ANOK
No building, no matter how long it is on fire, can fall into its own footprint from fire alone.


Please feel free to google "Charleston SC sofa store fire" and start reading. You will find stuff that proves this incorrect.


Originally posted by ANOK
The outer walls can not end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building from a natural collapse. It takes a special process known as implosion demolition.


Incorrect. If the interior has already began to collapse before the exterior shell, then yes, this is possible.

How might we be able to tell that the interior of a building is collapsing?

Maybe a huge penthouse falling into it from the roof? Then a few seconds (not sure of the exact time without looking) then the global collapse begins. What do you think the inside is doing?



Originally posted by ANOK


Why do you keep ignoring the facts to wallow in fantasy? How can you keep ignoring the facts that the collapse of WTC 7 fell exactly as an implosion demolition is designed to do?


Explain Fitteman Hall. Thanks.


Originally posted by ANOK
Please think about what the chances are of that happening from fire alone, seriously.


It wasn't fire alone. Another process called gravity was also involved.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


www.911myths.com...

I guesss this doesnt qualify as "fires"

Notice quanity of smoke pushing out of multiple floors on South side - what could be causing that?

Notice the fires breaking out and spreading on the North side (side not struck by debris)

13 floors in WTC 7were on fire - I'd say that qualifies as major fires



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Cut and paste from conspiracy sites like

algoxy.com...

And some whack job environmental letter

Are not PROOF !!

I don't know where the other guy got his information, but is clearly wrong. Must have assumed something

Suggest try reading "CITY IN THE SKY: The Raise and Fall of the World Trade Center" by two New York Times
writers who reference the actual plans for the building . Chapter 5 . Has illustrations showing design details
so dont have to read....

Not some poorly informed conspiracy fruit cakes with an agenda....

Then try to tell me again how building had concrete core......



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Cut and paste from conspiracy sites like

algoxy.com...

And some whack job environmental letter

Are not PROOF !!

I don't know where the other guy got his information, but is clearly wrong. Must have assumed something

Suggest try reading "CITY IN THE SKY: The Raise and Fall of the World Trade Center" by two New York Times
writers who reference the actual plans for the building . Chapter 5 . Has illustrations showing design details
so dont have to read....

Not some poorly informed conspiracy fruit cakes with an agenda....

Then try to tell me again how building had concrete core......


Thedman. all you ever do is cut and paste, and what you supply is easily used as ammunition to discredit you. Does it matter where the information comes from when you won't believe it anyway? If you went outside your circle of propaganda sites, you'd be surprised what sort of information you can find. Are you seriously offering an article from the NYT as evidence after Judith Miller and the WMD?

If you're going to try to rebut my posts, you'll need to go for a little more effort than saying "nuh uh!", or "wack" and then posting the propaganda paper of record as proof. Try providing some reasonable argument as to why the Oxford University publication would be wrong, when the NYT and you are so right...things along those lines...only if you want to be taken seriously.

And then there's the matter of the rest of my points. Are you ready to talk about the direction of the damage on the close up images from the NIST yet? How can a plane wing have caused that damage.
edit on 27-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Sorry Yankee451 but not at home at the moment but will be back later tonight when I will reply to your BS! this is from my mobile.
You have a real cheek saying people don't reply a quick look at this thread will let people see how many things you haven't answered because you don't have the nads to.

You have NO construction experience and a second rate education by the looks of it.

edit on 28-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join