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: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 





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


Thanks for confirming you are a troll. I have refuted your argument on at least two different posts on this thread along with several others by explaining in detail the simple laws of physics that your theory violates and why it violates them. it is so simple a 10 year old can understand. However you in typical troll fashion ignore those refutations never address them and then claim we have not refuted you in little smart-ellec statements like the above rinse and repeat.

The resistance of the lower mass of the building was far to great for the buildings to fall like they did through that mass. Your uniformed kindergarten opinion of how they could have is ridiculous and pure fantasy. In fact if one believes your laughable fantasy the buildings could not even stand up on their own without any impact.


But I'll give you credit that you have successfully trolled ATS with this nonsense and kept it going for several pages. Touche.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:15 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, 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.


Ok,now I know that some of you guys don't like how he put it, he came off a little indignant (don't worry man I'm not bashing just give me a minute).Maybe he sounded condescending? Well I have to say I read his post and was like "YESSS EXACTLY!!!" because some of us say these very important facts over and over and people dismissively wave it away like its rotted sauerkraut or something. I'm with you on this man. No simple explanation waves away how well constructed the WTC was and how it was pulled apart. If there had been a collapse those buildings would have gone done sooooo much worse. These were clean drops on the scope of things. Oh! just to add, you know, these buildings are built with building codes that demand standards not even needed for safety but are included anyways to insure the structurally integrity was WELL over required needs.That being said, the strategic planning to take a building of their size and safety is necessary. you don't just fly a plane in and thats it, maybe if you had a nuke on board or something but think about it people....



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



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


"I find this meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic." lol had to....
2nd line...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
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.


The really crazy thing in this whole line of reasoning is that the conspirators just killed 3000 people with the intent of killing as many as possible, and then go out and warn people for building 7. If the goal was to cause chaos death and destruction, why bother with building 7 at all? I never heard a sensible answer to that.
edit on 18-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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.



I am not hiding at all. But will only waste so much time holding a so called "intelligent debate" with someone who obviously hasn't any real understanding of the physical science as to why structures stand upright in the first place.

It's like yelling at someone foreign to make them understand better but to whom doesn't understand english in the first place.

Go back to school and gain some knowledge on the subject as to why buildings stand upright ....and then we can then hold an "intelligent" debate.

But at the moment "your points" are baseless and are at best based upon conjecture and not upon any proven science.

Without any proof it's simply heresay and more talk than much of anything else of substance.

How much are they paying you 911 anti-Truther guys anyway ?




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


because there was no evidence of explosives being used that day
What would you consider evidence of explosives being used that day? Explosive sounds? Squibs? Tremors felt from explosives? How about eyewitness reports of explosive sounds squibs and tremors? Or perhaps video and audio of same?

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


The towers didn't fall ANYWHERE near close to free fall speed, the the core is still left standing in the South Tower , backing up a pancake collapse (explosives would have taken the core completely out)
This is pure speculation on your part. The fact is that explosive demolitions do fail and otherwise have problems even when properly planed. As far as 14 seconds not being ANYWHERE near close to free fall speeds I think you're wrong. 9.3 seconds is the amount of time it takes an object to fall the distance of the height of the towers without resistance. Air is resistance which contributes to terminal velocity. Steel and concrete are also resistance. The time it took these two towers to fall is so close to free fall speeds that it is scary in my opinion.

Another question I have. You keep using the term "progressive collapse". Do you have evidence of a similar building undergoing a progressive collapse that was not a controlled demolition?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Here is a video regarding the issue of "what the building could take", the buildings actually performed BETTER than expected under the circumstances.




People need to stop feeding the arguments with brush offs because I could easily brush you all off as crazy conspiracy theorists like you brush me off a a blind sheep but I have actually taken the time to analyze and break down the evidence presented to me so lets have an intelligent debate?
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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.



I am not hiding at all. But will only waste so much time holding a so called "intelligent debate" with someone who obviously hasn't any real understanding of the physical science as to why structures stand upright in the first place.

It's like yelling at someone foreign to make them understand better but to whom doesn't understand english in the first place.

Go back to school and gain some knowledge on the subject as to why buildings stand upright ....and then we can then hold an "intelligent" debate.

But at the moment "your points" are baseless and are at best based upon conjecture and not upon any proven science.

Without any proof it's simply heresay and more talk than much of anything else of substance.

How much are they paying you 911 anti-Truther guys anyway ?




Still haven't tackled any of my specific points, still hiding behind empty words, NEXT!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion


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


The towers fell at around 64% of free fall acceleration. 64% is a lot closer to 50% than it is to 100%. So if you want put it near something you should say:

the buildings collapsed at nearly one half free fall speed.


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by Echtelion
 


As I said there is something fishy is going on in the ATS lately. This natural fall theory(nonsense) is kept alive while the very valid, alarming and interesting threads are deleted (404ed, disappeared into the thin air).

Folks, ATS has become a disinfo forum. It has become the Conspiracy propaganda site against the conspiracy theories.

One of the MODs has already admitted that he/she is paid by the government, without his/her bosses knowing about it.

Pretty sickening chain of event, considering the faith people have on ATS so far. Stay away from it. Do not post.

Just watch what it is doing, like this kind of crap post by the OP.


Agreed on the lack of validation for legitimate issues with the official story, I am troubled by what you said about a MOD, can you specify the name of that MOD? If ATS's leadership is cracked we need to reevaluate how much is even being told to the members. I was on a thread earlier where a guy said he noticed 404's on a couple threads that looked compelling and had foot traffic. SkepticOverlord ripped into him for it and I think it was rather harsh. A bit dismissive and all over a topic I am now starting to see momentum building within...Troubling indeed...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


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
Remember all the dust (pulverized concrete) and debris that obscured the view of the collapsing buildings? This stuff was falling at free fall speeds with the resistance from air slowing it down yet it is still in the way of viewing the building. I simply do not see how a progressive collapse can happen at this rate. It defies logic in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The metal frame is able to hold 3 times its weight. The top of the building being removed from the support wouldn't be enough weight to collapse the rest of the structure that wasn't effected by the heat from the fires.

Also it wasn't an implosion because that would have been too obviously controlled to the general public, as it was in building 7.
edit on 6/18/2011 by Drezden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:32 PM
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.


This is so true. I've tried arguing this point with people and most of them had absolutely no idea what building 7 was. Most people in this country think that two towers fell that day and are completely unaware of the third. Now that is scary...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne


Originally posted by Echtelion


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


The towers fell at around 64% of free fall acceleration. 64% is a lot closer to 50% than it is to 100%. So if you want put it near something you should say: the buildings collapsed at nearly one half free fall speed.



Oh god, ok fine does that change that it wasn't falling at the speed a building collapsing on itself would?? Whats the point of a correction like this when you have people overstating the official story in much less accurate ways. How about you go put some corrective red ink over the poster's stating the towers dropped at an altogether slower speed hmm?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
The metal frame is able to hole 3 times its weight. The top of the building being removed from the support wouldn't be enough weight to collapse the rest of the structure that wasn't effected by the heat from the fires.



This where you are sadly mistaken my friend, there were raging fires MANY floors below where the plane impacted. The top came crashing down on these weakened floors once the support from where the impact zone gave, then the weakened floors that were struck down by the above floors then become part of the SAME mass as the above floors therefore progressively collapsing the building in the same fashion until total collapse. I don't know why people say the physics doesn't add up when almost every expert agrees on what happened to the towers, it's "physically impossible" are just empty truther words that mean NOTHING.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Hey how about you tackle some of his points? There are a number of us here now, waiting for you to explain how your math (if any at all) is superior to everyone elses? Yeah buddy we are waiting on you



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I'll watch how long this nonsense thread will be kept alive by the ATS mod. The reknowned physicist professor from the Brigham Young university proved the existence of the substance called thermite(thermate) collected from the ashes picked up from the twin tower site. What credentials this OP guy has if I may ask?

He should visit and meet Professor Steven E. Jones in person and have a debate against his theory of the thermite. And make a tape record of the conversation and if he wins, post the whole script here in the ATS. That will make the ATS a credible source intead of allowing non expert to spewing nonsense to cause massive waste of time and distrust. I think the ATS has gotten to the lowest point. And I noticed the owner stopped the thread questioning the site's integrity on the 404ing of the valid and legitimate threads. I think a lot of ATSers have noticed this trend and got disappointed.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


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
Remember all the dust (pulverized concrete) and debris that obscured the view of the collapsing buildings? This stuff was falling at free fall speeds with the resistance from air slowing it down yet it is still in the way of viewing the building. I simply do not see how a progressive collapse can happen at this rate. It defies logic in my opinion.



What defies logic is thinking that a huge amount of mass that is gaining weight by the second due to the weakening to the floors below it, could not progressively cause a building to collapse in about 15 seconds when free fall is only around 9 seconds....To me that defies logic.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


"Almost every expert agrees" Are you an expert? You talk about it like you were there, were you? Some external links to you "experts" please? Yeah I don't know if you get it yet but your whole ego is a sinking ship...My opinion is your ill informed and a hot head so you don't like how people have made you feel stupid for bringing the idea forward so your just going to defend it because your unwilling to admit you might be wrong (as it would imply that its not whether you might be or not, its that you ARE). You seem like a noob and you talk fierce like one to. You dont have anything to prove man just back away and go research man...







 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join