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: 21
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


while i applaud your effort and respect your opinion, these diagrams cannot be taken as anything other than your opinion. if these diagrams were presented as proof of a conspiracy everybody would laugh.

just because they attempt to support the offical version of 9/11 does not make them anymore credible interms of proving anything therefore we are left with your opinion and explaination of what you think, and it ends there.

all of that you acknowledge.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



John Gross denies existance of molten metal
John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report is quesitoned about the existance of molten steel at the WTC building, the collapse of Building 7, and also explains how the NIST report did not do any analysis concerning the physical collapse of all three buidlings. John Gross was asked to come speak at the…

www.youtube.com...

In a nutshell John Gross is calling all the NYC firemen liars. John Gross lies to the public in a public assembly.


The second excerpt records the impressions of an amateur videographer:
45 minutes into the taping that we were doing there was an explosion -- it was way up where the fire was -- and the whole building at that point bellyed out, in flames, and everybody ran.
The third excerpt, a man in talk-show format panel states:
I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions -- three thuds -- and turned around to see the building we just got out of tend to tip over and fold in on itself.

The final clip shows a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner reading "AMERICA RESPONDS". He states:
[color=gold]and all of a sudden it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.

John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:
I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’


911research.wtc7.net...

So you are claiming all these eyewitnesses are liar’s as well, correct?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things. If you hear a fart sound would you automatically assume there was a whoppie cushion (secondary device)? No you assume it was a fart lol "the simplest answer is always the best".....4983448 things could have caused explosions that had NOTHING to due with use of explosive devices.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things.

No they are one in the same. Your excuses are getting ridiculous and how you go out of your way rejecting credible eyewitnesses who were at the WTC. You cannot justify what you think the Firemen wittiness. You have just demonstrated that you are in complete denial of the facts and do not want to hear or see the Truth. We are in here to deny ignorance not to embrace it.



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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Circular reasoning is circular.

Because it's a circle.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things. If you hear a fart sound would you automatically assume there was a whoppie cushion (secondary device)? No you assume it was a fart lol "the simplest answer is always the best".....4983448 things could have caused explosions that had NOTHING to due with use of explosive devices.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


That's rather a silly rebut. Anyway, for someone who didn't want to be "bashed" you are rather snarly of everyone else who might be of a different opinion. In any case your collapse idea is based on the wrong, (outmoded) assumptions to begin with.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


One problem.

They went down, from top to bottom, all the way to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum, to within about 3 seconds of absolute free fall. Thus, it is only within that difference between timed destruction (about 13 seconds) and absolute free fall in air (just over 10 seconds) within which all the "compacting" or "crushing" can have occured.

One two three

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Case closed.

Don't be a fool.

And what happens when we use the explosives hypothesis, and examine everything else at the scene..?

The offical story "collapse" hypothesis doesn't hold any water. To ask us to believe in it, is to ask us to believe in impossible things.

Nice try, sorry, but no cigar.

If only it could be believed, it would make life a little easier, but it cannot. It's not congruent with the physical laws of the universe, the "collapse" story.

Watch the videos, time it.

And while you're at it, take a very very good look at those videos..


edit on 18-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Hearing explosions and hearing explosions caused from a secondary device are 2 different things. If you hear a fart sound would you automatically assume there was a whoppie cushion (secondary device)? No you assume it was a fart lol "the simplest answer is always the best".....4983448 things could have caused explosions that had NOTHING to due with use of explosive devices.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


That's rather a silly rebut. Anyway, for someone who didn't want to be "bashed" you are rather snarly of everyone else who might be of a different opinion. In any case your collapse idea is based on the wrong, (outmoded) assumptions to begin with.



Please quote where I was snarly? That's another lie....and my rebut makes perfect sense, just because you're a theorists who always looks for something that isn't there, doesn't mean that the simple answer doesn't remain true



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


One problem.

They went down, from top to bottom, all the way to the ground without any appreciable loss of momentum, to within about 3 seconds of absolute free fall. Thus, it is only within that difference between timed destruction (about 13 seconds) and absolute free fall in air (just over 10 seconds) within which all the "compacting" or "crushing" can have occured.

One two three

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Case closed.

Don't be a fool.

And what happens when we use the explosives hypothesis, and examine everything else at the scene..?

The offical story "collapse" hypothesis doesn't hold any water. To ask us to believe in it, is to ask us to believe in impossible things.

Nice try, sorry, but no cigar.

If only it could be believed, it would make life a little easier, but it cannot. It's not congruent with the physical laws of the universe, the "collapse" story.


Watch the videos, time it.

And while you're at it, take a very very good look at those videos..


edit on 18-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo



If a controlled demolition is so plausible how come NIST rules it out completely? and don't say because they back up the government because if that was the case they would have backed up the original pancake theory. Case closed.


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



If a controlled demolition is so plausible how come NIST rules it out completely?

You have been given the truth to this answer by several poster in here including me.


Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

Where have you been, The fact is the NIST Report was proven a fraud a long time ago and no scientists support it either.
[color=gold]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.


No it has nothing to do with the government, NIST admitted they never looked in to investigating demolition; in fact they went out of their way to avoid looking into demolition and “dreamed up” their own theory (hypothesis) which doesn’t hold water to real science. The only thing that does hold water to science concerning the WTC, is demolition, nothing else does.
edit on 18-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Do I have to post this again?


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Yea and no one has ever lied before care ti respond to my previous post



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing


Look who's calling the kettle black.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
It seems to me you have a bevy of 'official' knowledge, friend.

But that's no substitute for good old common sense.

You are asking intelligent people to believe that steel behaved on that day in a manner that it had never behaved before, or has since.

How much Jet fuel would be left after the initial impact that it would flood lower floors, create a fire of more than 1100 degrees and keep it burning long enough to melt through tens of feet of structural steel?

Were they flying to Mars?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neOrevolutionist

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing


Look who's calling the kettle black.



How? Name one time I was rude with somebody who wasn't rude to me first....You won't, which means I wasn't bashing anybody initially. Nobody said anything was 100% , just most likely based off all of the expert reports I've read. I've reviewed the small percentage of bunk scientist reports and they are shunned from the scientific community like Jones (I cited all the experts who refuted him) and he doesn't add up. Believe what you will.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


I dont know dude.

Try this, take a sharpened pencil. Sit it upright on a table pointy end up, and slam the palm of your hand has hard as possible on top of it. Now tell me, does the pencil collapse and turns to dust? If not, why not?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I am amazed that this thread has continued this far. SkepticandBeliever has all the signs of being a wannabe if not yet an actual member of ATS cadre of the OS defenders troll squad. I could go on, but you all know what I mean and, yet, you're all being very kind in your responses to his tiresome sophomoric posts on this subject. He is obviously not interested in any logical discourse.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
It seems to me you have a bevy of 'official' knowledge, friend.

But that's no substitute for good old common sense.

You are asking intelligent people to believe that steel behaved on that day in a manner that it had never behaved before, or has since.

How much Jet fuel would be left after the initial impact that it would flood lower floors, create a fire of more than 1100 degrees and keep it burning long enough to melt through tens of feet of structural steel?

Were they flying to Mars?



Honestly just look it up on google because everything has been debunked time and time again (not just by government people, that claim is outrages) and I have already posted all of the sources and links on this thread time and time again. It's ok to ask questions but when you get the answer don't make # up then say "you don't know physics!" what a cop out.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Do I have to post this again?

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


Do I have to post this again?


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, [color=gold]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.

Your questions have been answered repeatedly by many posters including me, yet you continue to ignore everyone who doesn’t support the OS
.
Your just having a conversation with yourself at this point.



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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


What then is in the realm of theory, and that was there, ( BTW, and as an aside, second and more often more severe strikes are the norm in terrorist attacks) Anyway, New York Times 2002,

"On one piece found last month, extremely detailed markings were found: Tower A, 92-95, 252. That means it came from the north tower, between the 92nd and 95th floors, about 30 feet from the southeast corner, on the east face of the building. The plane that struck this building came in at just about this level, but it struck the north face.

This piece, 21 feet long, is mangled and torn at one end and severely chewed up near the center, where there are burn marks and the scumlike whitish remnants of the fireproofing that once clung to the steel. The stubs of brackets that once held up floors still protrude from what had been the interior surface of the columns. Tiny, twisted scraps of the aluminum that formed the gleaming facade of the tower cling to the steel.

The condition of floor studs on the steel hints to Mr. Gilsanz that the floor at this spot in the upper reaches of the north tower collapsed not because of a faulty weld, but for some other reason that investigators have still not determined.

Another piece of steel recently discovered has a series of steel washers that are cracked, a worrisome sign to Mr. Sharp, whose company, TurnaSure L.L.C., designs super strong fasteners that have been installed in some of the world's tallest buildings. ''I would not anticipate this happening, and I want to know what it did,'' he said, adding that a cracked washer significantly reduced the strength of a bolted connection.

Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright." Source NYT,

www.nytimes.com... the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.&pagewanted=2

Thin metal, = unknown sulphur source= undetermined, cracked washers= unknown= undetermined.



new topics




 
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join