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.

 

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The initial engineering has been completely done to prevent such thing from happening.


Like I said before, The Titanic was designed to take way more than the impact of an ice berg that doesn't mean the government blew it up. The engineer of the towers even said himself (I can find the video if you request it) that the towers were only designed to withstand the impact of Boeing 707s (smaller planes) and the fuel load wasn't even considered at the time.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Nah, alot of them are actually reverse evolving types, who cannot handle the changes that are fast upon us, and they are desperately trying to hold onto something, something WRONG...bye guys, there is no future for those of you who believe in governments.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Let's see this guy joined a few days ago on the 16th, completely ignores the overwhelming evidence presented that what he proposes violates the laws of physics. No one has claimed the building fell at free fall speed yet he keeps arguing as if someone did. Uses ridicule and name calling and offers circular arguments ignoring the facts rinse and repeat etc. etc. I'd say he meets the definition of Troll quite readily.

I could be wrong and he is just mentally challenged however it might do us well to stop feeding the trolls...




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



Take it for what it's worth.....or take a course in elementary Physics...that will only tell you the exact same thing as I had condensed into a few paragraphs ...

It's Your choice to Deny Ignorance or not.

Physics are a proven science and explain the world around us.

It's called the Truth.



All you are doing is hiding behind words like "truth" and "physics" without actually tackling any of my points head on. You talk about ignorance, but at least most people who disagree with me take the time to have an intelligent debate on the subjects at hand.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
its all a scam, sure it was fake but so is the truth movement



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Let's see this guy joined a few days ago on the 16th, completely ignores the overwhelming evidence presented that what he proposes violates the laws of physics. No one has claimed the building fell at free fall speed yet he keeps arguing as if someone did. Uses ridicule and name calling and offers circular arguments ignoring the facts rinse and repeat etc. etc. I'd say he meets the definition of Troll quite readily.

I could be wrong and he is just mentally challenged however it might do us well to stop feeding the trolls...




Hiding behind words like 'truth" "troll" "physics" "mentally challenged" without actually refuting my specific points isn't helping you and nh_ee's cases much. This is funny lol
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Nah, alot of them are actually reverse evolving types, who cannot handle the changes that are fast upon us, and they are desperately trying to hold onto something, something WRONG...bye guys, there is no future for those of you who believe in governments.



What's up with the generalizing? Thinking that because I don't believe in this ONE conspiracy theory then means I must have total faith in my government....Where does this logic come from?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Why do liars keep saying there was no resistance? If there was no resistance the building would have fallen at free fall speed (8 seconds)
If you had done the math you would know that it takes an object about 9.3 seconds to free fall the distance of the height of the towers without resistance, including air.

A human skydiver will reach terminal velocity within this period so would take considerably longer to fall that same distance. An additional 4.6 seconds is not that much time given the amount of material that was involved and consolidated in one small area. I would say that there was almost no resistance.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Skeptic, why are you here? It's obvious you have no technical education. It's obvious you have not read the mountain of research done by some very intelligent individuals. It's obvious you haven't even watched the videos you offer to show. Are you being paid to come here and cause an uproar? This whole subject has been taken so far beyond the meager half-baked evidence you provide so as to make your effort laughable. You do yourself nor this topic any justice by coming in unprepared and wasting time.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   


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.

Was this passenger who thought the bomb threat on the plane was fake some sort of bomb sniffing dog who could talk and use a cell phone? Hey, maybe Scooby Doo was on the alleged flight.

So they didn't find any evidence of explosives? Was this before or after they discarded and destroyed the material evidence?



Hiding behind words like 'truth" "troll" "mentally challenged" without actually refuting my specific points isn't helping your cases much. Name one building in human history that was hit at high speed (500mph) by a fully loaded jet, good luck with that truther lol

I could say the same thing about someone who uses attack insult words such as truther, but why bother stating the obvious?


Firefighters weren't saying anything about WTC 7 " being brought down soon ". This is what they were saying :- www.youtube.com...

So this firefighter was able to get close enough to WTC7 to inspect it and determine that its strucural integrity had been compromised and was about to collapse, but does not have a speck of dust on his hair, face or cleanly pressed shirt. There must have been a wardrobe trailer on this movie set.

Also, notice how the camera is tilted at an angle while interviewing this clown to give the false impression that the building is leaning? Hey, lookey there...that walkway bridge in the background is also leaning. Why didn't that collapse?



That's all you got? Looks like I win

Agreed. What kind of dog biscuit do you want as your prize?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I agree that no explosive charges of any kind were needed, although I don't agree with all points by SkepticAndBeliever. For example that the lower floors were damaged, that is not required for a progressive collapse.

The most likely mode of failure is that the top section fell on the floors (the horizontal area), and not exactly on the supporting columns. The floors were designed to only hold that specific floor and not the complete top section. Even when you do not take into consideration any dynamic load, but just imagine that you gently place the weight of the top section on a completely intact single floor, it would not hold it. In reality, the top section had a velocity, significantly increasing the load. The load capacity of a single floor is exceeded by even a larger margin. Once the joints of a floor failed, the combined weight of this floor and the top section falls another couple meters, gaining momentum ready to destroy the next floor. Of course what I describe is a simplified description just to explain the concept. In reality it would be a lot more chaotic, and a single floor would probably not fail completely symmetrically at once. In the scientific and engineering community, that means the people who actually design buildings like the WTC, there isn't much of a disagreement on this subject. If anyone thinks it is physically impossible, go to you local university and talk to a couple of structural engineers.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Why do liars keep saying there was no resistance? If there was no resistance the building would have fallen at free fall speed (8 seconds)
If you had done the math you would know that it takes an object about 9.3 seconds to free fall the distance of the height of the towers without resistance, including air.

A human skydiver will reach terminal velocity within this period so would take considerably longer to fall that same distance. An additional 4.6 seconds is not that much time given the amount of material that was involved and consolidated in one small area. I would say that there was almost no resistance.



Sorry you are right it is 9.3 seconds I apologize, however you are wrong about 4.6 seconds not being that much time when we are discussing free fall, because the dust/debri (actually falling at free fall) hit the ground 4.6 seconds before the rest of the tower collapsed, showing at least some resistance. Plus nobody said the progressive collapse required an extraordinary amount of resistance anyway.

Check this picture out:




The debris is falling at nearly free fall speed, while the rest of the tower is struggling to catch up showing resistance.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
.

Skyscraper columns are designed to support a given amount of STATIC vertical mass, when that system is breached by either moving or non-vertical mass the forces acting on the columns become precarious calculations to attempt to make. The damage began when 100+ton aircrafts applied horizontal forces to the building systems.





Relatively speaking, 100+ tons is quite a bit of weight but how does it compare to the weight of the entire WTC structure ?

An example of this is of a lighter vehicle colliding with a heavier one....which will suffer more damage ?
The lighter one of course.

Skyscrapers are designed to stand statically but are also designed sway as well and why they have the large counterbalance systems in the tops of them. This is also how they remain upright in storms for example.

The WTC were designed to absorb the impact of a B707 as well as Hurricane force winds in the 150+ mph category.

This is done entire by allowing the building to sway and absorb the force of impact.

Look at the recent videos of the skyscrapers in Tokyo swaying with the earthquake. And they didn't topple over.



As far as seeing red melts in the skyscrapers go, has anyone considered the thousands of miles of copper wiring and or thin plumbing pipes? Wasn't this noticed inside the building walls where such infrastructure would be? Has nobody ever thrown some copper wiring into a camp fire before? Besides metal that turns orange and red glows long before it melts, I know this by bending back an anti sway bar on a sports car I damaged, got it bright red to hammer straight again with a sledgehammer. It was a full inch diameter bar, bright red far from melting point, metal shop 101.



Red hot is far from molten....you can stick a steel straight pin into an match flame to sterilize it and it will glow red hot....but it doesn't transcend to a molten state and/or lose it's structural integrity.

It can be hammered ....and how Blacksmiths have worked metal for eons.

remember, Red hot ---> White Hot ----> Molten

The metal at WTC had melted to the point that it had formed into balls of metal meaning it had changed from a solid state to a liquid one.

That's considerably hotter than Red Hot...

Speaking of Red Hots...I Think it's time for some Hot Dogs cooked on my steel grill !
That seems to remain intact even though the coals are repeatedly red hot.

And my Weber Grill is over 20 years old !



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by baboo
Skeptic, why are you here? It's obvious you have no technical education. It's obvious you have not read the mountain of research done by some very intelligent individuals. It's obvious you haven't even watched the videos you offer to show. Are you being paid to come here and cause an uproar? This whole subject has been taken so far beyond the meager half-baked evidence you provide so as to make your effort laughable. You do yourself nor this topic any justice by coming in unprepared and wasting time.



Why are you here? You haven't tackled any of my specific points just posted an empty useless paragraph lol So hilarious.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I AM SO AMAZED! Good work! You just came out with the EXACT same baloney the establishment used to fuel the War on Terror from day one!

One big sarcastic "Bravo!"

So now, irony aside, could you please explain us why one of the strongly-structured high-altitude skyscrapers on the planet could just collapse, at near-freefall speed, just because of the falling weight of approx. 1/10th of its structure, after less than an hour of fires? You're not good enough in physics to answer this, I suppose...

If the WTC would have been made entirely of wood, it still would have taken hours for the same result to happen! So here we had a strucre made of (1) a complex grid of huge, fire-treated steel beam as the external frame, and (2) an internal core consisting of a column of the same metal all crossed and reinforced with armed concrete. These buildings were able to support something like 2-3 times their entire weight!

The only thing that could bring'em down, is a substantial damage inside and especially at the BASE of the structure, so it would be "pulled" from below, in the same tested-and-true principle of implosion.

When the core support gets broken, what happens? The weight gets to be violently transferred to the support walls, and you only need the help of high-powered explosives spread all across the structure, at the right increments, to trigger the final collapse. A collapse of the upper section of the buildings will also help, making a "banana split" effect..

According to all interviews and videos from witnesses (including the fireworkers) this is exactly what happened! A big boom form the basement was heard a few minutes prior to the collapse, and then a series of booms were heard all-across the building.

SkepticAndbeliever, you're good for the "Tin-Foil Hat" section of ATS! Please come back when you have more constructive things than INSULTS to intelligence, like this one, for us.

But I'm afraid I might have lost my energy and time writing a reply to a troll.



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

Originally posted by -PLB-go to you local university and talk to a couple of structural engineers.


That's a great idea, for everyone, but please be polite and there's no need to call them sell-outs or traitors if they disagree with your theory of the collapse. Remember, also, that these people's lives don't revolve around 9/11.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenCo
Thank you
. I think the point is that you and most of the people have the feeling that all the gov story is true, and like me, some have the feeling that isn´t the true. Anyway, you have ellaborated a good explanation.


How....HOW could anyone believe the official story when the inconsistencies are mounted on such a hill of inconsistencies that if it isnt that the story is deceptively untrue than it must be that is untrue due to negligence in investigation??

UGH its like you guys want to rehash every thread out there about this and pretend the evidence towards the government at the least being negligent in its investigation of 9/11 isn't there. Its there alright in every forum about this topic. Lets keep in mind all the little things that don't add up.


  1. What was the long narrow attachement on the underside of the plane hitting the first tower? Because its not STANDARD on any model plane in its class.
  2. Peoples cell phones were working at 10,000+ feet?? Really??
  3. All the reports and interviews of firemen,police officers,and maitenance workers about explosions and rumbles from inside the building in a organized pattern are just irrelevant right?
  4. Anyone remember the plane impact like 80 years ago with the Empire State Building? So our ability to construct buildings has since degraded then??
  5. The fact that an interview with the property owner of the Twin Towers documents him stating that they "pulled" 7 is just nonsense?
  6. How come these amatuer pilots knew how to handle such big birds with relative confidence albeit lacking VITAL piloting experience you dont get on a computer??
  7. Am I crazy or is it just coicidental that we had NO jets scrambled at any time during the HOURS from deviation of plotted course to impact??
  8. THOUSANDS died, their loss demands scrutiny on all levels. If its even possible that the government was being negligent (let alone at fault even if partially) then the movement to hold the government accountable should be taken seriously! Not treated like the latest front page story from the tabloids and yet we are called "truthers" almost in a mocking sense


I realize I'll catch flak. I don't care, I read so much crap about how the steel did melt and all this horse crap. You know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like they want to tweak things, here and there, add something here, feign ignorance on this point there, censure that point over there, but since this works towards our story we can add this in here BUT make sure you leave out that part right there.The longer it is since it happened the more time and resources they have available to blanket what happened with layers of confusion and technical jargon no one will understand except for a small enlightened few. I remember a mathematics professor going to a press release by the commission and picking apart the plausibility of the free fall not being legitimate and I remember because this professor had the "experts" on the ropes and visibly so. If the truth is so present how come experts are nervous to offer specific details the math can be checked on? How come the math is bad?? I don't pretend to understand the physics of it intimately but I know that more than one expert now has claimed the same end result with the numbers and if there's one thing I do know about math its that an equation like that has one answer.Math is not open ended in that sense. Please remember people there's a lot of damning little facts out there and its probably all that's left...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Qwenn
 


Firefighters weren't saying anything about WTC 7 " being brought down soon ". This is what they were saying :-

www.youtube.com...



I'm not talking about a clip of film taken from the internet, I am talking about the live feeds from the actual day. I was nursing a dying relative that day and we watched the whole thing from the first feeds, then for the whole day. The firemen WERE walking around at the base of building 7, saying to people that they needed to clear the area, because the building was about to come down, they were not panicking, just clearing the area for what was going to happen. They KNEW it was coming down, yet all around it, there was little happening.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I AM SO AMAZED! Good work! You just came out with the EXACT same baloney the establishment used to fuel the War on Terror from day one!

One big sarcastic "Bravo!"

So now, irony aside, could you please explain us why one of the strongly-structured high-altitude skyscrapers on the planet could just collapse, at near-freefall speed


Wow are you a troll? I already posted the video 293829 times proving the building never came down even near free fall speed. And can you explain how solidified water caused an unsinkable steel structure like the Titanic to sink? Must be a conspiracy right? Get out of here with that nonsense.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwenn

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Qwenn
 


Firefighters weren't saying anything about WTC 7 " being brought down soon ". This is what they were saying :-

www.youtube.com...



I'm not talking about a clip of film taken from the internet, I am talking about the live feeds from the actual day. I was nursing a dying relative that day and we watched the whole thing from the first feeds, then for the whole day. The firemen WERE walking around at the base of building 7, saying to people that they needed to clear the area, because the building was about to come down, they were not panicking, just clearing the area for what was going to happen. They KNEW it was coming down, yet all around it, there was little happening.



What, you think the elite who constructed the most elaborate conspiracy in the history of humanity let some fire fighters in on it? OF COURSE THEY KNEW the building was going to fall, all the witnesses knew because of the damage done to the building. Jesus some things never get through to to people.




top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join