Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing, but I made up a few pictures depicting why I think the WTC buildings collapsed (basically leaning to towards the "official" story as it's put lol).



I conducted my own test using this video:

www.youtube.com...

The collapse starts at 3 seconds into the video, and the building stops becoming visible at around 12 or 13 seconds into the video (9 seconds) , however just like stated above, there are MANY floors below which are unaccounted for in the fall, which brings my collapse time to around 14 seconds (14-18 seconds including all the debris that fell).




Investigative teams were specifically looking for traces of explosives after the attacks as well because one of the calls from a passenger indicated there may have been a bomb on the plane (even though the passenger stated he thought it was fake), and to no surprise there was no evidence of the sort.


In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Why would the demolition need to begin at the ground floor ?

In a conventional demolition that is how it is done but this,
if it is a demolition, was anything but conventional.

If "I" were planning this type of event I would have it set up
so that I could trigger demolition on any floor because I
could not be certain where the planes would impact.


+67 more 
posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Explain Bldg 7. That is the start, middle and end of the debate. If that ONE building can be explained by natural forces and occurrence through the events of that morning, then all the theories fall apart. If however, it cannot be explained as a cause/effect of two planes hitting Bldg 1 and 2, then it's all a load of crap. It's really that simple and that cut and dry.

So..... Explain Bldg 7.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

REALLY


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 18/6/2011 by Sauron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
you are deluded. ever heard of physics. Look it up.

No offense but if you continue to think the weren't demolished. It just proves they could rely on how gullible people like you are.



Ever heard of gravity? Look it up.....I Swear some people believe every outrages theory they believe on the internet like a drone.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Building Seven was brought down by Alien forces. Makes as much sense as the BS MSM is telling us. BTW I remember the buildings turning into dust right before our eyes. No one saw metal collapsing. I am not sure why people keep talking about a sandwich effect. A sandwich effect would not turn metal into dust.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Buford2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
you are deluded. ever heard of physics. Look it up.

No offense but if you continue to think the weren't demolished. It just proves they could rely on how gullible people like you are.



And at least I show diagrams for my claims, you just hide behind the word "physics" lol What a load of delusional crap.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Explain Bldg 7. That is the start, middle and end of the debate. If that ONE building can be explained by natural forces and occurrence through the events of that morning, then all the theories fall apart. If however, it cannot be explained as a cause/effect of two planes hitting Bldg 1 and 2, then it's all a load of crap. It's really that simple and that cut and dry.

So..... Explain Bldg 7.



I'm talking about the twin towers not building 7, stay on topic young grasshopper (even thought building 7 didn't need explosives either).
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 


The demolition starts by taking out a percentage of the lower columns then starts from top to bottom demolishing the remaining ground floor columns during the last moments. This all happens with quick timing to allow free fall and the laws of physics to apply for a safe demolition. it's why you see the roof slightly cave in on building 7 for example. It makes it easy to implode on the spot. Common knowledge amongst demo experts.

You need to see the pictures of columns cut on an angle from ground zero the twin towers were demolished.

And also hear the janitors story.
edit on 18-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: Didn't check grammar :/


+37 more 
posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
You are not taking into account the laws of motion that govern all objects in movement and what happens to them when subjected to other forces.

You are making the common mistake of considering the complete mass of the top, but failing to consider the complete mass of the bottom. This will make your calculations inaccurate, as it will ignore the resistance the mass of the bottom that would have to be overcome.

If you consider all the mass of the bottom, and account for equal opposite reactions and momentum conservation, it becomes obvious 15 floors can not cause 95 floors to be crushed completely before the 15 floors are all crushed themselves, thus making the complete collapse impossible.

We know floors were crushed during the collapse, the top floors could not stay intact while crushing the floors bellow them. Even IF two bottom floors were crushed for ONE top floor, there still would not be enough falling floors to completely crush the bottom floors.

Each level had to have the ability to hold the weigh above it, plus the safety factor. The core columns gradually tapered from bottom to top...

Here is the core columns data... wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

How did the core telescope itself against the increasing mass, path of most resistance?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I entirely agreed about the 'truthers' being a little nuts and a whole bunch to avoid..until I actually watched the video taken that day of Bldg 7 going down. Before I actually watched it with my own Mark I eyeballs, I figured it was all a crock. When I saw that, I cannot say anything but, controlled implosion demolition. Period. There IS NO other way to describe it. So.. like I said.., Explain that and everything else falls apart. If that cannot be explained..and I've yet to hear one...then everything is in play about what happened that day. Period. That is just a fact of life...both directions. If someone cuts my way to prove me wrong, I'll thank them and buy 'em a beer. I want ANY other explanation, as the obvious one is the LAST ONE I ever want to accept as an American... I just don't see another way to view it.

Did planes hit the towers? Yes. Did those planes go in with Jihadis screaming Allahua Akhbar? Yes. Did they swear allegiance to Bin Laden? Hell yes. Twice, in fact. However...the fact the Hijackers WERE AQ fighters does nothing to explain a dozen other issues about the events of that day that don't track. Kinda like every water tight door on every ship in Pearl Haror being wide open in direct contradiction of Naval procedure on Dec 7th, 1941. It's a matter of whether TPTB had an interest in letting events take their natural course, once aware of things being well in progress.....and the benefit that NOT interferring with it would carry.

When FDR did it, it was the RIGHT thing to do. If he hadn't let Japan kick our butt at Pearl, we would have been faced with no ally left alive in the World when Japan and Germany decided to meet somewhere around Kansas, USA to split what was left of the world. In 2001 though? This was EVIL... EVIL in the Religious sense. There is no other way to put it and that IS what *I* believe happened. Al Qaeda damn sure did it...but others suspected or KNEW..and let it play out...and may they burn in the pits of hell.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Buford2
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Building Seven was brought down by Alien forces. Makes as much sense as the BS MSM is telling us. BTW I remember the buildings turning into dust right before our eyes. No one saw metal collapsing. I am not sure why people keep talking about a sandwich effect. A sandwich effect would not turn metal into dust.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Buford2 because: (no reason given)


Or create pools of molten steel. Don't forget the molten steel.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

You need to see the pictures of columns cut on an angle from ground zero the twin towers were demolished


I hate when people say I need to see something I've seen 2348398 times, has it ever occurred to you that maybe I have seen it but I don't by the conspiracy revolving it?

This You-Tube video explains the cut column

www.youtube.com...


As far as Building 7 is concerned:

edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


+9 more 
posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
And lets not forget the actual witnesses that specifically state that the twin towers had explosions in their basements PRIOR to the planes ever hitting the buildings....plus larry silverstien admitting he called for building 7 to be pulled..funny thing is, is it takes a week or 2 to prep a building to be pulled, so now you know who was behind it


WAKE UP PEOPLE QUIT BEING NAIVE



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You are not taking into account the laws of motion that govern all objects in movement and what happens to them when subjected to other forces.


But the mass of the bottom of the tower doesn't have the force of gravity pushing it towards anything like the top does.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


This video is really good.

It also explains how a pancake collapse cannot happen. Every-time the weight of the above floors hits floor with undamaged columns the mass above loses momentum because it is met with much more resistance from the bottom floors.



Antenna Dropped First BOMB SHELL WTC1 Proof Thermite Blew Central Cores.






Atennae Collapsed First proof the Core Columns were indeed Cut/Pulled Larry Silver Stein "Pull It"
Thermite
edit on 18-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


With all respect, the melting steel argument IS a crock. I am no "truther" believing every theory. Far from it. Steel may MELT above the temps JP can achieve..but melting wasn't needed to drop the towers. Only a serious weakining was required. One floor, in fact, is all it took.. then it pancacked to the bottom. THAT much I'll agree with. The towers were identical in every way. Every beam, bolt and concrete slab were made as mirrors...so they dropped the same way..and by DESIGN..by the way. Those buildings WERE designed to drop inside their own footprint..so THAT part I don't have any issue with..on the face of it. I bought the whole story, as I said...until I saw the video of #7. That shot the whole thing to hell...and no way that had a damned thing to do with the planes going into the towers..NOR was there time to plant the charges that made THAT implosion drop possible. No.... Bldg 7 was a HUGE screw up..and it blows the whole story on how that morning happened.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
If you think that there was no foul-play on 9/11 then you are sheep. Period. Watch the countless documentaries like loose change 1 & 2, zeitgiest, ect.. There is no possible way that the events that were told by the MSM are accurate. As for the building 7 topic, it was already admitted that building 7 was intentionally brought down by the owner (Larry Silverstein) because of "excessive fire damage".



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


More Smoke Means a fire is Starved which means the fire Isn't hot enough to melt steel.

More Smoke means weaker fire.

Debunked





top topics
 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join