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: 22
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 


What about the molten lava pit that burned for months after the fall? What about the charged explosions that are unmistakenly seen going off as the building fell? What about the "heros" (firefighters) that were in the buildings and heard the explosions going off? What about building 7? What about dubyas wacko response to claiming to see the 1st tower fall? Need I go on? And are you an archtitect?




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
To the person who said the NIST was proven a fraud that's laughable, because it was probably by some conspiracy theorist. Here's what I believe happened.





posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:40 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..





posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
everyone knows Steel loses its strength and stiffness when subjected to high temperatures. A typical steel structural member loses its load-carrying capacity (or about 50 percent of its original strength) at 538°C (1,000°F) when exposed to an ASTM E-119 standard fire (Kodur and Harmathy 2002).
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 

Yes, but in the case of the north tower, how did the remaining length of the entire structure of the building (94 floors), get "crushed" in about three seconds?
What about the occurance of destruction beyond the theoretical point of "collapse initiation"?

The entirety of the NIST report is a collapse initiation hypothesis only. Beyond that, what occured they refer to as "automatic and inevitable" "as seen in the videos".

What a fraud.


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
everyone knows Steel loses its strength and stiffness when subjected to high temperatures. A typical steel structural member loses its load-carrying capacity (or about 50 percent of its original strength) at 538°C (1,000°F) when exposed to an ASTM E-119 standard fire (Kodur and Harmathy 2002).
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Wow this thread is ridiculous. Look at the other cases of planes that fly into other buildings in the past. Did those buildings explode from the ground and upwards and then perfectly collapsed onto its own footprint at free-fall speed?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


have you heard of the documentary architects and engineers? over 1000 architects and engineers disagree with you. Are you more qualified than them?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by balon0
Wow this thread is ridiculous. Look at the other cases of planes that fly into other buildings in the past.



Wow this post is stupid. The buildings that were hit by planes before were not like the WTC buildings, plus those planes that flew into the buildings mostly did so due to fog, when you're in fog would you be going fast? NO, you would be going as slow as you could trying not to crash. When you're a terrorist TRYING to slam into a building a knock it down, then the changes of it happening are much more likely. Do you not use logic, or do you always compare apples to oranges?



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

Originally posted by chooselove
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


have you heard of the documentary architects and engineers? over 1000 architects and engineers disagree with you. Are you more qualified than them?



Why are you comparing me to the people you reference? That makes no sense. Maybe you should compare the people you referenced to the EXPERTS I referenced earlier in the thread that disagree with ANY possibility of a controlled demolition. The people in your doc are not experts by any stretch of the imaginations, and there's not "1000" of them, quit lying to yourself.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Now do you explain the steel columns in the sub level that looks like they had been cut with a shape charge? Diagonal cuts?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



Dude you escaped numerous times the question on bd 7. You ask whats the connection? IF THAT building fell for weird reasons and you are so gullible to accept it then by all means you will eat all the grass they feed you for 1 and 2. Whoever planned this thing for 1.2 and 7 had the same ideas behind it.
So dont act as if those events are seporate.

Simply embrace the fact you are their sheep. Either wake up or be one with the rest of the flock... can you say BEEEEE?
edit on 18-6-2011 by Alda1981 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   



Simply embrace the fact you are their sheep. Either wake up or be one with the rest of the flock... can you say BEEEEE?



I'm not gullible enough to believe conspiracy theories that started on the internet like you are but I'M the sheep? Most people laugh at the 911 truth movement, wake up, there was no inside job, all the witnesses said they heard "groaning" sounds more so then they did explosions (conspiracy people don't mention that though) proving structural collapse was going to happen. They all knew it was coming down, why would explosives be needed? Quit being a conspiracy nut and wake up to the real world, this isn't a movie.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


To the person who said the NIST was proven a fraud that's laughable, because it was probably by some conspiracy theorist. Here's what I believe happened.


We know what you believe what happened, however the rest of us are in here to deny ignorance not to embrace it as you continue to do.
To the person who denies the facts about NIST being confronted by the experts.
The fact is experts do not support NIST hypothesis or their lies.


[color=gold]Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008
University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

ABSTRACT
NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. The issues and their implications are addressed.
NIST's Recent Answer to an Avoidance Question

www.sealane.org...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


The organization is collecting signatures for a petition that demands an independent investigation with subpoena power of the September 11 attacks, specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and 7 WTC.[2][9] By March 2011, nearly 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals and 11,500 other supporters had signed the petition.[10][11][12] According to the organization, the identities and qualifications of all licenced architects and engineers whose names are being published on its website as well as those of other supporters who are listed separately are subjected to verification before acceptance.

www.ae911truth.org...

this is interesting too
www.youtube.com...=85



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


To the person who said the NIST was proven a fraud that's laughable, because it was probably by some conspiracy theorist. Here's what I believe happened.


We know what you believe what happened, however the rest of us are in here to deny ignorance not to embrace it as you continue to do.
To the person who denies the facts about NIST being confronted by the experts.
The fact is experts do not support NIST hypothesis or their lies.


[color=gold]Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008
University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

ABSTRACT
NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. The issues and their implications are addressed.
NIST's Recent Answer to an Avoidance Question

www.sealane.org...




Lets assume for fun you are right and they were disproven, that doesn't mean they were lying, that could mean they came up with the best answer they could and people found holes, you jump to conclusions and act like you deny ignorance? Even if they did lie (just for fun) , how does that indicate an inside job? Maybe they covered up mistakes a long the way? I never understood illogical people trying to make A to B connections that don't exist. I'm sure the government covered up ALOT of # about 911, but there is no evidence of explosives used , or that it was an inside job. These are and have always have been, just EMPTY THEORIES for people to have fun with.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cayrichard
 





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.


Exactly what has happened is the take-down of America and the consolidation of wealth by the richest. When the jobs go to other countries or to robots; there is nowhere to work. So the elites profit from the slave labour in China Or from the robots building things en masse.

While 50 million in America are on food stamps; Its all part of their plan.

And the MSM is the MINISTRY OF TRUTH spreading their propaganda. They are owned paid and bought for by the UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA



“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”



WELCOME to Fascism Folks



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Juanxlink
Yet again a thread by someone who has no clue about what hes talking about is let free to roam the boards, I just wish the ignore feature was back, this is turning into GLP fast.

So OP, are you a building engineer? Demolitions expert? Do you have any brains at all? Not trying to argue here, just as I seen you trying to discredit any and all 9/11 threads, I thought Id come around to say hello, and remind you that most of what you try to present as fact, is a big chunk of your delusion. When you have something to substantiate your cause (the OS is true and defensable) please come again, so far you only embarrass yourself by pointing out nonsense and babling like a lil child. Try addressing the questions that have been posted, oh wait, that would send your lil OS down the drain now wouldnt it?

And to think that this forum is highly moderated...Yet rampant lies and firestarters are allowed to roam free, sad state of ATS...




I've addressed every question posted, and this isn't and NWO dictatorship I can post any opinion I want. You haven't refuted ANY of my proof, while I have cited MANY experts who brush off this stupid conspiracy theory. You hide behind bunk science and conspiracy lies.


They have proven you wrong time after time then you come back trying to insult them. You are trying to tell them the experts you cite are smarter than the experts they site witch is wrong. Instead of doing the research for your self you are citeing "experts" as for stupid conspiracy you seem to define the words. noone can really refute your proof (because their is none) and the ones that clearly do in the eyes of real science get called names. What if anything do you even know about science who are you to decide if a phd scientist is a bunko. You really gotta remember some of these people wasting their time to respond to you here are phd or have various other degrees including a few structral eng. So before you make another thread and beg for no bashing then start bashing your posters that are trying to help you become educated. Why not step back and take a few deep breaths and reaproach the subject with a open mind you know the none bunk scientific approach. And remember in the matter of respect you get what you give.. O and btw dont bother replying Your thread is not worth hanging around long enough for a response.
edit on 18-6-2011 by jonco6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonco6

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Juanxlink
Yet again a thread by someone who has no clue about what hes talking about is let free to roam the boards, I just wish the ignore feature was back, this is turning into GLP fast.

So OP, are you a building engineer? Demolitions expert? Do you have any brains at all? Not trying to argue here, just as I seen you trying to discredit any and all 9/11 threads, I thought Id come around to say hello, and remind you that most of what you try to present as fact, is a big chunk of your delusion. When you have something to substantiate your cause (the OS is true and defensable) please come again, so far you only embarrass yourself by pointing out nonsense and babling like a lil child. Try addressing the questions that have been posted, oh wait, that would send your lil OS down the drain now wouldnt it?

And to think that this forum is highly moderated...Yet rampant lies and firestarters are allowed to roam free, sad state of ATS...




I've addressed every question posted, and this isn't and NWO dictatorship I can post any opinion I want. You haven't refuted ANY of my proof, while I have cited MANY experts who brush off this stupid conspiracy theory. You hide behind bunk science and conspiracy lies.


They have proven you wrong time after time then you come back trying to insult them. You are trying to tell them the experts you cite are smarter than the experts they site witch is wrong. Instead of doing the research for your self you are citeing "experts" as for stupid conspiracy you seem to define the words. noone can really refute your proof (because their is none) and the ones that clearly do in the eyes of real science get called names. What if anything do you even know about science who are you to decide if a phd scientist is a bunko. You really gotta remember some of these people wasting their time to respond to you here are phd or have various other degrees including a few structral eng. So before you make another thread and beg for no bashing then start bashing your posters that are trying to help you become educated. Why not step back and take a few deep breaths and reaproach the subject with a open mind you know the none bunk scientific approach. And remember in the matter of respect you get what you give.. O and btw dont bother replying Your thread is not worth hanging around long enough for a response.
edit on 18-6-2011 by jonco6 because: (no reason given)



Fair enough, but the reason I don't agree with a lot of the experts is that they still say the building fell at free fall speed (9 seconds) when that has been proven wrong. It's obvious a lot of these experts (who do have degrees I'm not denying that) are taking the "facts" about the conspiracy as truth and produced their opinions based off that + their prior knowledge of physics, therefore making the opinion slightly biased. The experts I cited ( who have degrees but also EXCEL in their position) have funding because they are the best at what they do, they take into acount ALL factors without making assumptions, and imo are more credible once you see who they are associated with. Yes these people that are mentioned have degrees, but that doesn't make them experts especially when they are part of a "movement'" and, the other ones just look for facts.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You present that but that fails to explain why the Atennae on the Tower Sunk before the building collapsed which proves the core columns were cut Or can i quote Larry Silver Stein "Pull It"

Turn Volume Off the Songs annoying and has swearing(expletives) WARNING


Watch the whole video before coming to your discernment. It clearly shows the attenae did collapse before the perimetre walls de-bunking your previous claim that the perimeter walls caused the structural failure.


Also you fail to explain the loss of momentum as the upper portion of the building collides with the lower portion of the building.


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




top topics



 
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join