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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.


End of thread!


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




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Plus the creator of Loose Change doesn't even believe his own documentary to be true, but people still talk about the video like it is lol


"I will be the first to admit that our film definitely contains errors, it does still make some dubious claims and it definitely does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts......Loose Chance is not a very fair representation of te 911 Truth Movement" - Dylan Avery



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Before I go, I would like to add.

I truly believe that there was a sinister side of 9/11.... What I do not know for sure...........Money and Wars(which leads to money) is what I "believe" the culprit is........I do not know who was really behind it.....and quite frankly I do not think we will ever know.

I take interest in the fact that the buildings fell,,,,, and there is no real proof to say that they were demolished by explosives......PROOF......not speculation.........


edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Again if it happened the way you claim, where is the mass of pancaked floors?

Floors can not be crushed, and ejected out of the footprint, and have enough mass to continue crushing undamaged floors, you can't have it both ways.

Equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, shows that as each floors impacted both floors would sustain damage. The 15 top floors could not stay completely intact long enough to pancake 95 floors, it's simply a ridiculous assertion. As the top floors fell they would be crushed just as much as the static floors they fell on, to understand that you have to understand the laws of motion that applies to ALL objects moving and colliding, regardless of whether they're falling up, down or sideways, how fast they move, or how big they are.

Especially as the evidence we have shows floors WERE being crushed, and ejected DURING the collapse, and there were no pancaked floors in the footprint. THAT means there is NO evidence of pancake collapse.

The missing truss seats MUST have another explanation that was not considered in the official reports.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
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.



I've seen the evidence and heard it, it just doesn't hold up because I'm not part of the gullible internet sheep who believe every conspiracy, wake up dude. Read the updated NIST report (which even refutes the governments original pancake theory push) and they said there is no way a controlled demo took the building down. Keep living in fantasy land truther.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


He also stated that he meant "pull the people out" of the bldg. not pull the bldg. down. Conspiracy guys will take anything they get and run with it....what a waste of time....



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


They didn't even investigate controlled demolition, so that is not a valid argument.

If that is all you have to fall back on then you have nothing because the NIST report is only a hypothesis, not theory, not fact. If you'd read it you would know that...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Again if it happened the way you claim, where is the mass of pancaked floors?

Floors can not be crushed, and ejected out of the footprint, and have enough mass to continue crushing undamaged floors, you can't have it both ways.



As the WTC-debris samples were examined, large chunks of concrete were found (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the samples were clearly in substantial piecess of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I've seen the evidence and heard it, it just doesn't hold up because I'm not part of the gullible internet sheep who believe every conspiracy, wake up dude. Read the updated NIST report (which even refutes the governments original pancake theory push) and they said there is no way a controlled demo took the building down. Keep living in fantasy land truther.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Where have you been, The fact is the NIST Report was proven a fraud a long time ago and no scientists support it either.
The fact is, the reason NIST says no control demolition took place is because they never investigated it.
The fact is If anyone is living in a fantasy land you have demonstrated that yourself.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 






This is incorrect because the weight of the above floors WERE in fact hitting damaged columns. You think the fire only damaged the part of the building that was impacted by the plane? There were fires weakening that steel all over the place.


Apparently even the Impact site of the Plane was quite lacking of Fires and to boot a large amount of Smoke was present which implies a starved FIRE. There is no way the fire was hot enough to Weaken Fire Resistant STEEL!







This video shows the molten steel.. Which proves that it wasn't just jet fuel burning.

And on top of that wt7 which was separated from 1 & 2 by an other building

Care to explain op?


#t wrong video
edit on 18-6-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sgtrocknroll
reply to post by anumohi
 


He also stated that he meant "pull the people out" of the bldg. not pull the bldg. down. Conspiracy guys will take anything they get and run with it....what a waste of time....


And that is only opinion, not fact.

But regardless WTC 7 did fall into its own footprint...





...and there is only one way that can happen. Is it just a coincidence that Larry happened to use a demolition term that sounded exactly like he was describing what we can see from evidence actually happened?

You don't see anything suspicious at all lol? Seriously?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 
good summary but please let me add one more point.
the pancake collapse does not work because the hangers holding the floors to the columns have 1/100 the steel cross section of the columns. When the mass of the above floors hits a floor the hangers sheer off and the columns remain standing... unless cut by other means.
You can see the sheered hangers on some of the columns in high def photos during cleanup. you can also see some columns with 45 degree cuts high in the air... in an Australian coffee table book of the aftermath.

Without demolition charges of some sort, the pancake collapse theory leaves 47 columns still standing, and they were 4 inch 50kpsi steel at the base.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


They didn't even investigate controlled demolition, so that is not a valid argument..


Really ? Here is some text RIGHT off of their website showing otherwise:



"NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building."


There are more points but I'll cut it off here.

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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
As the WTC-debris samples were examined, large chunks of concrete were found (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the samples were clearly in substantial piecess of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...


So what? A pancake collapse has complete floors still intact in the footprint, it's where the term comes from, because it looks like pancakes stacked up. There is not enough energy available for a pancake collapse to have destroyed all the floors. In other words the floors all destroyed each other, that is not possible.

Try this at home, take some slabs of concrete, crush two of them together, then see if you can crush another slab with those crushed parts. Just trying to make this stupid simple for you.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Why, if a businessman in a $1,000 suit, makes a statement or CBS, NBC etc. or posits a theory he or she has credibility. If a witness in a t shirt and Overalls, or fireman's uniform makes an assertion it is suspect. There are witnesses working in the basement that heard explosions, fire dept employees heard explosions at lower levels. This is not hypothetical these are facts. All of the glass in the lobby was blown out and explosions were heard here even though the impact was 80 stories up.
Why does a Colin Powell in a General's uniform standing in front of a UN forum, looking distinguished and presenting a completely fraudulant case for WMD's in Iraq have credibility. Why is the lie forgotten so quickly and why is the public going back to the same media again searching for the truth.
Squibs or hot gas ejections, characteristic of controlled demolitions were seen and photographed from the two towers. Fires were not hot enough to melt steel yet hot streams of molten metal were photographed on the sides of the buildings.
There was a police countdown that is recorded prior to bldg. 7's collapse. Larry Silverstein admitted that there was a controlled demolition of building 7. The debunkers want you to believe that if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it is very likely to be a genetic hybrid that looks like duck but in reality is not.
The buildings were impacted one side, making a collapse on the building's footprint highly unlikely yet it happened. Concrete was pulverized and hot gas from explosions rose high above the buildings. The clouds of material in the air were pyroclastic flows as seen in volcanic explosions where dust is carried by hot gases. There is not enough potential energy in the structures to cause this level of destruction in a gravity collapse.
Controlled demolitions can occur top down or bottom up. This was in both directions. Base columns were taken out and the downward collapse was assisted by explosions set at various levels. There were elevator upgrades ongoing the month before giving the perpetrators ample opportunity and access to bring in explosive materials and set charges.
Silverstein had the foresight to insure the buildings against terror attacks only 6 monts before the attacks. Insuring buildings against terror attacks was unheard of at that time. The buildings were full of asbestos and a removal program would cost millions. The loss of the buildings was a financial windfall for Silverstein.
Not one but two pristine terrorist passports passed through a flaming aircraft were no fragment of a human body larger than a fingernail was found floated out of the interior of the building and landed on the street below. Now passenger passports only two terrorist passports. God certainly does work in mysterious ways.
In less than 6 hours the CIA had the names of 19 terrorists and Bin Laden as the mastermind. The FBI did not put Bin Laden on their 10 most wanted list for 9/11 because there was not enough evidence.
The level of puts on United and AA went way up prior to 9/11. Investigations led to Brown Brothers Harriman whose CIA was Buzzy Krongard an ex deputy director of the CIA. There the trail went cold.
PHD's analyze the material from different sites and find a military grade version of thermate and are discredited by Bill O'Reilly and other talking heads so the PHD's are labelled Whak Jobs.
There were many warnings of a terrorist attack and they went unheaded yet FEMA was on site and ready the day of the attacks. Even NIST in it's report said bldg 7 fell at freefall speed. A FEMA report found sulphur residue on columns. This did not come from regular carbon based fuels.
It is sad that in articles lke these that government paid debunkers jump in to try to get people to ignore the facts. They have some twisted belief that they are on the same team that orchestrated this horrific destruction and their loyalty to a psychopathic cause will be rewarded. When a tyrannical regime does succeed in taking over the United States they will be among the first to be discharged. History shows that a tyrannical regime is always paranoid and will kill it's young first. They cover-up agents seen the results of their compliance, knowing they were lied to will be too dangerous to keep alive.
This event was the initial salvo in the takedown of America. The economic crisis is a continuation of this. The same debunkers will try to convince you that unemployment is only 9% yet 50 million people are on foodstamps and that a government that cares for you has no problem spending trillions on many war theatres but has little sympathy for the millions of unemployed or underemployed. These people have been thrown under the bus as have those who died in the WTC. Wake up forks and get ready as it is a slippery downhill slope from here.
PS there is a 5 day FEMA exercise. Silverstein owns the Sears Tower which too is apparently loaded with asbestos as well. For those of you who work there it might be a good time to think about a short vacation.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Ok, so just because the engineers of the buildings THOUGHT that they made it strong enough to withstand a large airplane hitting it means that it ACTUALLY COULD?

Did they test their theory? Did they do a test by flying a 747 into the building? No, they did not, so how can you sit there and act like they for sure made the buildings strong enough to withstand a plane impact? lol



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 




I've seen the evidence and heard it, it just doesn't hold up because I'm not part of the gullible internet sheep who believe every conspiracy, wake up dude.


I have an idea. Why don't you email Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and get all of the professional help you need. I don't know anything about engineering, but I am a historian and if you look at the macro alternative view of history, you don't even need to look at the evidence. Why not? Because not only has this happened in history many times, our own leaders have done similar things.

Without looking at physical evidence of the world trade center and the pentagon, history has told us time and time again: Power leads to wanting more power, and this move is just like any other in the playbook.

I believe a part of what you said is true: there are people who run after conspiracies way too much (Like Birthers that think exposing Obama would make anything different at all). But what is even worse than that are those that can't discern what a true conspiracy is, and can not remove the rose-colored glasses. That looks like the category you fall in.

You can respond, but I wont be checking this thread anymore. Either you understand what I have just told you will not. but that is the truth. (either that or your just trying to get some "conspiracy theorists" riled up). Your pick



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
You can forget about total mass of either tower above the 'plane hit line falling down on the rest of the buildings. Most of the upper portion of the south tower fell and twisted and disintegrated away from the lower portion. The north tower was similar, however a large portion from above its hit line stayed intact until it hit the street. Also the often used video of the mast appearing to fall straight down is but an illusion, the mast is actually falling backwards, as would a falling tree, down and away from the point of view in that video.

South tower pictures,

cnparm.home.texas.net... Other later pictures show the tower top in total disintegration,

inapcache.boston.com...

So the collapses initiated near or at the impact points, and below that the collapse was progressive, even, and also totally destructive, but mass weight had little to do with it, and the fact that the core remained momentarily is another element to consider. Building 7 has to be taken into consideration also since, for what I said above to be considered true, building 7 had to be hit by the falling off of an intact part of the upper portion of the north tower to cause a major damage to building 7, and not from anything lower down the north tower. A lot of things need to be looked at again, and anything is up for consideration, but not mass weight.
edit on 18-6-2011 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


And to you:

Open Fire NEVER melts steel. If the buildings would have fallen, they would have fallen in half sideways. not into it's footprint

Peace



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Illustronic
 





A gravity burn incendiary cannot take out vertical columns


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that idea is as wrong as wrong can be:



Sorry for rehashing old news, but it seems that debunkers don't get the concept that you can't just say random things and claim you have debunked something.

Reality has a nasty way not bending to your crazy ideas.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


Here this video shows the molten steel proving that it was just jet fuel burning. Plus the video that you posted states that within 10 min all the jet fuel had burned up so doesn't that mean that the fire should have gotten less intense after all it was burning more than an hour before the fire weakened the support structure enough for it to collapse.. It just doesn't add up

Plus add to that the collapse of 7

And this


Originally posted by hawkiye
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.


End of thread!


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


Game over try as you may but what I have just spoon fed you can't be refuted.. But good luck trying anyways



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join