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: 18
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink

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".



you don't know that they WERE cut durring the collapse either, where are all your facts? Ignorance is bliss is right...
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)




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

Originally posted by liejunkie01

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.
edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling, sorry


They where not designed? Any building is, by nature. That is why buildings dont suddenly collapse and that is why steel structures can burn violently for days without ever collapsing. That is why bombs can go of without it collapsing (oklahoma)

Stop fantasizing. This happened because the columns where carefully cut.

And even if your fantasy scenario would have taken place, the speed of the collapse could not have been free fall acceleration, you see, because the collapsing stories would interact with other stories, slowing them down.

Besides, where is all the steel, if this was kinetic energy at work, what happened to the steel? It just folded up?



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

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by liejunkie01

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.
edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling, sorry


They where not designed? Any building is, by nature. That is why buildings dont suddenly collapse and that is why steel structures can burn violently for days without ever collapsing. That is why bombs can go of without it collapsing (oklahoma)

Stop fantasizing. This happened because the columns where carefully cut.

And even if your fantasy scenario would have taken place, the speed of the collapse could not have been free fall acceleration, you see, because the collapsing stories would interact with other stories, slowing them down.

Besides, where is all the steel, if this was kinetic energy at work, what happened to the steel? It just folded up?




The fantasy is thinking the towers fell at free fall speed, when they didn't not fall anywhere near close to that. Have fun believing lies. This video proves they fell in 14 -20 seconds, NOT FREE FALL.


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
airplane fuel => huge fire, weakens structure
magnesium from wings => burns through the floor and destroys construction



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
explosion sounds inconsistent with shaking of building => sound travels slower than light (means if youre at street level you will hear the explosion later)

explosions in building => various machinery located through the building that catches fire for several reasons.
THERE ARE EVEN PEOPLE THAT LOCATED ALL DEVICES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EXPLODED FOR UNBELIEVERS LIKE YOU. just google it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Apparently, no one on the side of the 9/11 pancake collapse side wants to argue with me directly, so will

someone else please ask them how they account for the speed at which the top fifteen floors fell, without so

much as a modicum of resistance from the eighty floors beneath them?

And where did the steel core columns go, if they were sheered away from the falling floors?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

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.


There are some persons who are respected scientists that saw what happened to Dr. Steven Jones that choose not to risk their professional status and livlihood to support evidence against TPTB like he did. The "Truth Scholors" are not ignoring proof. If you are not a disinformation agent, then you are obviously a closed minded person who refuses to look at the scientific evidence and understands physics.

I will dismiss your comments that I am not logical and I am "severely mentally impaired" as ad hominem rhetoric.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Anok,

I'm not sure if you've seen this video yet, but it was released by NIST in a FOIA request.

www.youtube.com...

It's Leslie Robertson himself saying there was molten steel.

Here's more info about it: 911blogger.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Official story may not be 100% right but if it was to me that would prove an inside job.
These guys also have missing information.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Do you have problem reading? I said free fall acceleration.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jimnuggits
 





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.


I am looking for how much they weighed........ Can you provide a link for this?

I would like to see some math.

Forgive me if I do not take your word for it........The truthers have taken over any information regarding 9/11.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Umm no, it doesn't, what lead to structural integrity being lost huh? If I have to point stuff out your not going to get it all nice and neat. I'm not your mom and I wont hold your hand through your confusion. If you want to insist that the towers dropped because of the fire, explain the unit underneath the first plane that connected with WTC, it is NOT standard on any commercial jet, ESPECIALLY on passenger airliners.

see the similarity?



But let me find a better pic of the pod on the plane in question, you might find the article attached to the photos informative too...Stop being so crass.


Pod attached to impacting plane

Lets no kid ourselves,we are mislead, this right now seems the only thing that's obvious!
edit on 18-6-2011 by Averysmallfoxx because: fixed link



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Apparently, no one on the side of the 9/11 pancake collapse side wants to argue with me directly, so will

someone else please ask them how they account for the speed at which the top fifteen floors fell, without so

much as a modicum of resistance from the eighty floors beneath them?

And where did the steel core columns go, if they were sheered away from the falling floors?




What do you mean where they did go? The core of the south tower was still intact after the collapse as seen in this picture.






Here is the core outlined if you still can't see it.


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Well I have to applaud you for the effort you have put into this thread but I cannot agree with your physics.
There is no way that the top section collapsing would have systematically crushed each floor below, pulverizing most of the concrete and causing a near "free fall" speed of collapse.

We have chewed it over many times here on ATS and there are some that get it and some that don't. I am a Construction Engineer and a member of A & E for Truth, I am not dependent on any Government financing for my projects so I feel I can tell it how i see it.

Trouble is there are few people in the world who can actually apply the technical knowledge that they use in their everyday life to try and make any sense of this event, so most rely on the explanation provided for them through the MSM and Government backed "experts". To me at least, the technical reasons given in the OS for the collapses of all 3 buildings are complete & utter BS.

PEACE,
RK



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
DYLAN AVERY SPEAKS:

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I don't know where to find the actual numbers, but any quick math will do. Let's just say for sake of argument that each floor weighs a pound.

A fifteen pound bowling ball would not be enought to crush an eighty pound cylinder made of the same materials. and especially not in as rapid a motion as we see here.

Unless the cylinder was already compromised, that is.

This is but one anomaly in the official story that stinks to high heaven.

Unfortunately, the truth will never be known, one way or the other, as the real evidence was removed immediately.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Umm no, it doesn't, what lead to structural integrity being lost huh? If I have to point stuff out your not going to get it all nice and neat. I'm not your mom and I wont hold your hand through your confusion. If you want to insist that the towers dropped because of the fire, explain the unit underneath the first plane that connected with WTC, it is NOT standard on any commercial jet, ESPECIALLY on passenger airliners.

see the similarity?








But let me find a better pic of the pod on the plane in question, you might find the article attached to the photos informative too...Stop being so crass.


Pod attached to impacting plane

Lets no kid ourselves,we are mislead, this right now seems the only thing that's obvious!
edit on 18-6-2011 by Averysmallfoxx because: fixed link




Why do I keep getting asked to debunk things that were debunked years ago?




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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


READ THE ARTICLE! Those photos were analyzed and put through a myriad of photo shop tweaks to determine its nature and it IS NOT a paint job! you can see the contours and really? your going to pretend it doesnt look at all like the pod used in remote operations? Yeah your an idiot to keep all this up. I'm done with you and your moron logic.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I am looking for how much they weighed........ Can you provide a link for this?

I would like to see some math.

Forgive me if I do not take your word for it........The truthers have taken over any information regarding 9/11.


The math is easy, each concrete floor weighed the same. More floors would weight more than less floors.

The core columns tapered, so they weighed less as they progressed higher. So a downward collapse of the core would mean having to overcome increasing weight and size.

If you understand and consider the laws of motion, specifically the 3rd law, equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, you would see that a complete collapse would not be possible unless another force that has not been considered was acting on the buildings.

Simple...




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I still can't believe that people actually think someone as smart as Larry Silverstein who was supposedly involved in this conspiracy would actually get on national television and admit to everyone that he ordered to have Building 7 demolished. lol... people actually believe that??

In this thread someone said that Silverstein admitted to "pulling" Building 7, when in fact he was never specific about exactly what was being pulled when he said "We decided to pull it." He most obviously was talking about the overall OPERATION, not the building itself.

But if you want to believe that men so clever and intelligent to be pulling off global conspiracies would just slip on television and give their whole plan away.... well go right ahead....



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join