Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

reply to post by someguy420

the OS says that the airplanes fuel melted the steel and caused the buildings collapse

It has been a while.

Can you provide a link where it states that they said it melted the steel?

Originally posted by someguy420
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

here's my whole deal right now, the OS says that the airplanes fuel melted the steel and caused the buildings collapse(first off jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough) but that's beside the point. When you watch the videos and you see the giant fireball erupt from the building, to me it looks like that is most of the Jet fuel, then shortly after the smoke becomes black, meaning that the fire isn't burning as hot as the initial explosion. Planes have crashed into buildings before without such a collapse. WTC7 wasn't even hit

What brought down building 7 if not controlled demolition?

NONONO, dont mention WTC7, its not in their scope, its thread derailing...Or it might be they are just stirring the ATS pot, so to speak, and have no points of value...

Originally posted by Juanxlink
No refutation needed for some fantasy facts, let us know when the guy gets an engineering degree. To add, why dont the OP try to explain the cutted-melted core columns? That must be a result of the pancaking too right?

I already provided a video explaining this too, please pay attention.


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by liejunkie01

I believe that they are in motion as they are falling down.

If the object is falling down, it is a projectile, it is not a weight. Do you see this subtle difference? In physics, a projectile and a weight are completely two different things. Why anyone should believe anything you say here.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
"Tiiime . . . is like a river . . . flowing to the seaaaa . . . "

Fist I'd like to welcome the OP to ATS. He just registered a couple of days ago, but his arguments are those of a well practiced debunker. These situations make me wonder under what name he was originally banned.

This sounds like an off topic start to the post, but it is actually germane to the discussion. Extraordinary claims like the one asserting that a controlled demolition was not necessary to bring down the towers, require extraordinary evidence and also, at least reassuring credentials.

The OP has no cred. He/she is a newbie. This is Sparta!

Even at 14 seconds for the collapse, the towers collapsed at 1/20th of a second per floor slower than free fall. Only a controlled demolition could achieve that speed of collapse. When you add in the symmetry of the collapse and other factors, such as evidence of thermite/ate, building 7's collapse being announced by the BBC in London,thousands of miles away, twenty minutes before it happened, Silverstein's "pull it" comment, witnesses being told to get back from building 7 because it was going to be brought down, witnesses reporting bombs in the building and on and on, the obvious thing is that controlled demolitions brought these buildings down.

Real newbies on ATS should check the date when a person making an extraordinary claim, collapse by "damage and fire related structual weakness", registered as a member. It is often, as I believe it is in this case, a very telling statistic.

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

I agree, this OP was the work of either a disinfo agent or someone who is totally ignorant to science and physics.

He totally disregards the work of the A&E for 9/11 Truth and the Scholors for 9/11 Truth. I hope that one day the criminals who were involved in this American tragedy will be brought to justice.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

I believe that they are in motion as they are falling down.

If the object is falling down, it is a projectile, it is not a weight. Do you see this subtle difference? In physics, a projectile and a weight are completely two different things. Why anyone should believe anything you say here.

You make no sense at all.

The weight of the upper floors falling.....................What is so hard to understand there Einstein?

Oh and building 7 has been explained COUNTLESS times in this thread, please pay attention.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Unfortunately, your explanation was debunked countless times also.

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by ipsedixit
"Tiiime . . . is like a river . . . flowing to the seaaaa . . . "

Fist I'd like to welcome the OP to ATS. He just registered a couple of days ago, but his arguments are those of a well practiced debunker. These situations make me wonder under what name he was originally banned.

This sounds like an off topic start to the post, but it is actually germane to the discussion. Extraordinary claims like the one asserting that a controlled demolition was not necessary to bring down the towers, require extraordinary evidence and also, at least reassuring credentials.

The OP has no cred. He/she is a newbie. This is Sparta!

Even at 14 seconds for the collapse, the towers collapsed at 1/20th of a second per floor slower than free fall. Only a controlled demolition could achieve that speed of collapse. When you add in the symmetry of the collapse and other factors, such as evidence of thermite/ate, building 7's collapse being announced by the BBC in London,thousands of miles away, twenty minutes before it happened, Silverstein's "pull it" comment, witnesses being told to get back from building 7 because it was going to be brought down, witnesses reporting bombs in the building and on and on, the obvious thing is that controlled demolitions brought these buildings down.

Real newbies on ATS should check the date when a person making an extraordinary claim, collapse by "damage and fire related structual weakness", registered as a member. It is often, as I believe it is in this case, a very telling statistic.

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

I agree, this OP was the work of either a disinfo agent or someone who is totally ignorant to science and physics.

He totally disregards the work of the A&E for 9/11 Truth and the Scholors for 9/11 Truth. I hope that one day the criminals who were involved in this American tragedy will be brought to justice.

That's funny, because all the respected scientists and physics experts agree with the updated NIST Report (unbiased). Obviously truth scholars are biased trying to press what they believe is the truth while ignoring proof. I guess you fail to recognize that...and "dis-info agent" REALLY? I'm just a person with a computer not part of any 911 cover up operation I swear you have no logic and are severely mentally impaired if you honestly believe that.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Its true, its validated as fact. No one denies the structural weakness incurred by fire however it is important to remember that it is the degree of responsibility the structural weakness plays in the overall scheme of things.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by liejunkie01

 

Its true, its validated as fact. No one denies the structural weakness incurred by fire however it is important to remember that it is the degree of responsibility the structural weakness plays in the overall scheme of things.

Umm...ya it's pretty much the biggest role played in the overall scheme of things.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by dadgad

 

Actually they were. Stop making things up.

Link please.

Show me where it says that the floors were made to support the upper floors downward force.

Again if you would read a little, instead of watching someone's made up youtube vids you might learn something.

You show me links instead.

As said above. The weight did not at all provide the kinetic energy you are fantasizing about.

Furthermore, even if the fires weakened the trusses and caused a collapse (of that particular story), the collapse would have been stopped by the other floors because those trusses were not exposed to any significant heat. Neither would there have been enough kinetic energy to support your claim since this entire scenario (science-fiction) took place at the top of the building.

You have shown no facts to back up your claims.

I use wiki sometimes because the info is there and it is quick. I read it before I used it. The information is all there.

Why are you dodging my question from before. I would like to see some actual proof of what you say is true. I see nothing that you have contributed to be of any factual evidence.

At least I use wiki.

Again you are talking in circles. The lower floors were not designed to handle the downward stresses of the falling floors above. That is not how the buildings are designed.

This is really my last post to you.

7 people took their physics class

I used to be on the side of the conspiracy theorists, but right now I am satisfied with the information I have.

I think it took so long before they release all the official stuff because they were very afraid of making errors and the consequences (like riots, terrorist attacks and stuff).

big S & F

www.cracked.com...


edit:
However, what I did not see mentioned here yet is the errors made in the construction of the WTC + the asbestos used. I don't know about construction but I heard that bin Laden's father was a construction tycoon and he built the twin towers?
I was told by someone into construction that there is a documentary about this, somewhere from the 80's or something which exposes the construction errors, but I've never seen it.
It might be this one though
Note: I am not into construction so my story might be BS.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by notsoperfect

 

This is the proof that you have not even taken the physics 101 course.

Tell me please.

Where did I say that I took Physics?

It is obvious that you have not. Please read some of the information presented by

www.ae911truth.org...

911scholars.org...


Be enlightened and educated...

Oh and building 7 has been explained COUNTLESS times in this thread, please pay attention.

reply to post by liejunkie01


The weight is a term used when the object is in a state of stand still. As soon as it starts to move, it becomes a projectile. You are using these two terms in confusion as if they are the same. It takes a long time for a weight to become a kinetic energy. Well, you proved yourself you are not technically credible.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Because you make no sense.

The top fifteen floors, even if they were in free fall, would not weigh enough to let the remaining floors fall with such velocity, giving no resistance.

The top floors fell at such a rate that some other element must have been present to necessitate the conditions which made them fall so quickly.

Eighty healthy, stable floors would not just give at the already documented rate of 1/20 of a second slower than the rate of free fall.

In other words, the top floors would have fallen at almost exactly that speed had there not been anything there at all.

Physics isn't your friend on this one, friend.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
It has been a while.

Can you provide a link where it states that they said it melted the steel?

How soon you OSers forget eh, or don't bother looking?



This NIST guys is caught in a lie about molten steel...

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by notsoperfect

 

This is the proof that you have not even taken the physics 101 course.

Tell me please.

Where did I say that I took Physics?

It is obvious that you have not. Please read some of the information presented by

www.ae911truth.org...

911scholars.org...


Be enlightened and educated...

They are biased because they already have it in their head they are right (hence the ironic use of the word truth) and ignore ALL the evidence that clearly points to the updated NIST report being true. NIST gathered info from thousands of people to get to where they did, are they all lying and part of the biggest conspiracy ever constructed on american soil? Hell no that's not probable at all, please wake up.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Juanxlink
No refutation needed for some fantasy facts, let us know when the guy gets an engineering degree. To add, why dont the OP try to explain the cutted-melted core columns? That must be a result of the pancaking too right?

I already provided a video explaining this too, please pay attention.


www.youtube.com...

Would you mind bringing some FACTS? Not "we dont know if they were cutted during the rubble removal works", if you consider that an answer, well then I can see why you took the OS hook line and sinker...

ATS motto should be changed "Ignorance Is Bliss".

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by liejunkie01
It has been a while.

Can you provide a link where it states that they said it melted the steel?

How soon you OSers forget eh, or don't bother looking?

This NIST guys is caught in a lie about molten steel...

Originally posted by ontarff

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by notsoperfect

 

This is the proof that you have not even taken the physics 101 course.

Tell me please.

Where did I say that I took Physics?

It is obvious that you have not. Please read some of the information presented by

www.ae911truth.org...

911scholars.org...


Be enlightened and educated...

No thank you.

I do not prefer to take my Physics lessons from some biased website. You should do the same.

Any site that has the word truther in it, is not an educational site..........As noticed by some of the "information" I have seen on this thread.

I might not have had physics, but I did graduate my two year course, 65 credit hours...........And there was some pretty tough work to do with physics.