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: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
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.



Dude your out dated theories have been debunked time and time again, please wake up from this illogical dream world you live in. There are no pods (as the video CLEARLY indicates), please finish high school before you play with the internet.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Mod Note



Please keep it ATS-Style: With Civility and Decorum.

Thank you.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
That's funny, you don't have to know physics to know it was demolitions. I know, they expect us to be stupid, but, come on, give us some credit.
You know, or we can just explain the molten rock by an eruption of a volcano in NY?? Please.
I hope people are smarter than that, to see right through the lies. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
It's like when the average person thinks about the twin towers they picture some toy model in their head or something... they fail to realize the incomprehensible size and volume of the actual buildings.

I don't care how strong you think you built your building, when it is that massively huge it will not be able to withstand the entire top 20% falling down onto the rest, it's just impossible to hold that kind of weight.
edit on 6/18/2011 by Diplomat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Everyone knows that it was reptilians working for the queen of england who crashed drone missles into the world trade towers, now stop crying and killing little black men for freedom you crazy yanks.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I remember those days like it was yesterday, and I have never been more certain of governmental complicity than all these years later, here on ATS.

These arguments are transparent, and, frankly, insulting to our intelligence.

It doesn't take Bernanke to figure out who made a bundle on this, and why they thought it necessary.

Think Reichstag Fire.

It's the Patriotic Thing to do.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
It's like when the average person thinks about the twin towers they picture some toy model in their head or something... they fail to realize the incomprehensible size and volume of the actual buildings.

I don't care how strong you think you built your building, when it is that massively huge it will not be able to withstand the entire top 20% falling down onto the rest, it's just impossible to hold that kind of weight.
edit on 6/18/2011 by Diplomat because: (no reason given)




But didn't you know? Life is just a movie and the law of physics don't apply, and when someone acts like they do apply I will just tell them they "don't know the laws of physics" back at them without providing any back up to the claims, see? it's fun to be a conspiracy theorist!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Those buildings AKA.. were built for resistance to still stand if an airplane ever struck them. Conveniently they drop in a moment's notice. It should of took hours upon hours before falling. The plane hit at the top, which left the bottom intact. Those buildings fell faster than the norm. Simple as that. Every other high tower can withstand an airplane and can still stand but these towers can't. Come on? You can't be that naive.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


While I do appreciate your attempt to sound educated on this topic, and get you a few stars to boot. You have to consider the structural aspect of what you are saying.



Notice each end of the floor truss. They are connected to the outer trusses(the skin). The floors are not solid. there is a strip of steel connected to another strip of steel......Each connection point (I-beam clip) is critical. They can only withstand a certain amount of blunt force trauma and is actually a weak point.....This is why they fell......The I-beam clips, two on one side and one on the other, failed where there was only one clip.....This is not that hard to understand....

Have you ever seen a bolt break? The bolt was subjected to more stress than it was designed to work under.......therefore complete failure.....just about the same concept...

The buildings were not solid mass. . They are made up of thousands of critical connections that are not supposed to operate outside of their design specifications........Engineering 101.........


Unfortunately I have to go. This has been fun for me. I will be back in a few hours.
edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: grammar, sorry......i want to sound edumacated..lol



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimeCrisis

Originally posted by Diplomat
It's like when the average person thinks about the twin towers they picture some toy model in their head or something... they fail to realize the incomprehensible size and volume of the actual buildings.

I don't care how strong you think you built your building, when it is that massively huge it will not be able to withstand the entire top 20% falling down onto the rest, it's just impossible to hold that kind of weight.
edit on 6/18/2011 by Diplomat because: (no reason given)

Your a moron... FACT!


The sky is red....FACT! See? Now I share your amazing logic!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



Thanks man. And because there was no evidence of explosives being used that day if you really want to get to the bottom of 911, then we have to learn more about how fire effects steel.

Your right there is no evidence of explosives being used that day especially when you refuse to see the evidence, and hear the evidence.



There is no point having this discussion with you when you continually ignore what everyone is showing you. We all know the OS and it has been proven a lie a long time ago by the experts.
My opinion is either your Trolling or you have tunnel vision.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyFox
Everyone knows that it was reptilians working for the queen of england who crashed drone missles into the world trade towers, now stop crying and killing little black men for freedom you crazy yanks.


You do know that they made previous plans about the towers and the pentagon in the early 1900's on how to prevent a terrorist attack? With the same wave of attack. In Britain no less. I'll have to find that document again. Where it shows the actual diagram of the attack. Too convenient, if you ask me and the way it was planned out.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
But each floor exploded to dust in the one tower.And the other tower was falling over before it fell in on itself.And that doesn't changed the fact that it fell with no resistance whatsoever.By the laws of physics and the fact it was a high rise steel framed building,the top part on the one tower should have fell over and on the other tower the floors exploded to dust so there was no pressure from above.Pressure from what,dust?

Not trying to bash your theory..well it's not even your theory it's old it's what they call the pancake effect.

And no plane or heavy debris hit building 7 and the excuse they gave was that fire made that building collapse.Now if this was true then all the demolition companies would be out of business if all you had to do was sprinkle a little jet fuel around then light a match.This is why demolitions take weeks to prepare!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   


While I do appreciate you attempt to sound educated on this topic, and get you a few stars to boot.

If you're going to make insinuations about other people's intelligence and education, the least you can do is figure out the difference between the words "you" and "your". After that, we can work on the next issue, such as knowing when to properly use a comma and construct a complete literate sentence.

As for your little grade school diagram, those claimed "critical connections" were obviously severed during the initial impact with the tower. If your delusion is correct, how is it that the towers were able to remain standing perfectly upright for an hour after the severing of these "critical connections"?
edit on 18-6-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I dont understand how this thread is still going.. There was enough evidence in the first 10 pages for this to be case closed



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TimeCrisis
 


Please chill with the personal stuff, man.

You don't do yourself or your cause any favors by making it personal.

If you're 'right' then the facts will mete that out.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join