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: 23
23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

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



[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...

I just put this up here to see how long it would take you to respond negatively, and you just demonstrated that you didn’t even read the paper.
You started a thread on “your opinions” and you ignore all the science that proves you wrong.

Carry on.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by ANOK
You are not taking into account the laws of motion that govern all objects in movement and what happens to them when subjected to other forces.


But the mass of the bottom of the tower doesn't have the force of gravity pushing it towards anything like the top does.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Indeed, but that force of gravity isn't stronger than 90 floors built to hold weight. Conventional Fire cannot melt steel.

As for that building 7 image, do you know precisely when that image was snapped? That image does NOT show any fire, it just shows dust... which could be from the towers. Even if it had small fires on it (how would it get small fires on it anyway? being where it was??) You expect me to believe small fires can take down a massive building? I had a HUGE fire, in my 3 story house as a kid... it survived.

You don't understand what you are talking about, it's absolutely clear you lack the information to justify the official story.

And a little "What I think happened" doodle in paint, does not give you any more credence than anyone else. In fact, you completely ignore that gravity creates downward force which is then equated to momentum. Momentum creates friction, friction creates destruction. The top floors would have been destroyed before they could have destoyed the bottom floors. After all, the bottom was infact STRONGER than the top. The top would have been destroyed by the floors above it, as well as being destroyed by the resistence of the floors below it.

I.E.

If the building "collapsed" it wouldn't have collapsed into the floor, it would have stopped shortly after the origin floors of the fire. FACT.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



[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...

I just put this up here to see how long it would take you to respond negatively, and you just demonstrated that you didn’t even read the paper.
You started a thread on “your opinions” and you ignore all the science that proves you wrong.

Carry on.




Didn't you read my other post where I stated that just because some holes were poked in the NIST report doesn't mean they lied? And even if it did it doesn't mean an inside job? Why would the government spend money for ANOTHEr investigation when it's clear the plane crash + fire took the buildings down SOMEHOW? Would you really want to fork out tax payers money satisfy a bunch of conspiracy theorists? Especially when we killed the pertetraitor already? NO! People need to use their brains
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
man stop feeding the dam trolls. look at this clowns join date. clearly he is here to instigate an up roar and distract as many people from legitimate topics. what a stupid concept is this. Oh lets discuss the twin towers but not building 7.
in order for the twin towers to implode as they did without demolitions you would have to have lifted them to double their height and drop them. even then they wouldnt implode perfectly into their foot print, This pancake theory is a joke. there is no way in hell fire alone brought these building down. for christ sake the building hit last came down first. the idiots couldnt even keep track of which building was hit first.

leave this fool to his delusions and focus on something important. he has you all scammed.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Anyway I'm done with this thread, I knew this thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (its the 911 conspiracy section what do you expect lol) but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job and that there is no HARD evidence to support that claim, just theories. I hope the gullible internet sheeple wake up from the spell the theories will put you under, and learn that the real world rejects these "movie like theories" and real physics and science does not indicate ANY foul play. Have fun delusional truthers.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originallyii posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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.

You've been rude to a number of members thus far and repeatedly I've suggested to you that your decorum and etiquette has been grossly lacking with members and even offered you solutions to your dificiencies with providing satisfying evidence for your claims.
You've been rude to me if you need specifics, you don't. You know what your doing. Everyone should bug out and leave the troll to his delusional ranting.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Originallyii posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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.

You've been rude to a number of members thus far and repeatedly I've suggested to you that your decorum and etiquette has been grossly lacking with members and even offered you solutions to your dificiencies with providing satisfying evidence for your claims.
You've been rude to me if you need specifics, you don't. You know what your doing. Everyone should bug out and leave the troll to his delusional ranting.



I'll say this one more time, name ONE time where I was rude to someone who wasn't rude to me FIRST? You wont, yet you don't talk to them about that? That shows bais towards me yet you claim to have impartial opinions? Have fun with the delusions, oh and just so you know I'm a disinformation agent sent from the Matrix!! There's another outrages conspiracy theory you can sink your teeth into.


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



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.


I never could understand why people who support the proven lies of the OS could be taken in with such twisted hogwash after the scientific evidence has been shown to them repeatedly by many posters.
I find it rather amusing that you believe you are convincing ATS readers that their all idiots and they lack any logical reasoning, because they will not jump on your bandwagon into supporting a proven fairytale.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Anyway I'm done with this thread, I knew this thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (its the 911 conspiracy section what do you expect lol) but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job and that there is no HARD evidence to support that claim, just theories. I hope the gullible internet sheeple wake up from the spell the theories will put you under, and learn that the real world rejects these "movie like theories" and real physics and science does not indicate ANY foul play. Have fun delusional truthers.


Why don't you go enlist right now in the armed forces. At 24 you're still young enough. Think of the college funding benefits you'll get! That way you can be in full unwavering support of the OS and its mission.
edit on 6/18/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Anyway I'm done with this thread, I knew this thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (its the 911 conspiracy section what do you expect lol) but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job


Please point out the majority on here that support your nonsense on ATS? There are none.
No, the same people know what they were told by NIST and the government were lies. What’s the matter ? Leaving us so soon, can’t handle the heat in the kitchen, eh?
edit on 18-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Anyway I'm done with this thread, I knew this thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (its the 911 conspiracy section what do you expect lol) but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job


Please point out the majority on here that support your nonsense on ATS? There are none.
No the same people know what they were told by NIST and the government were lies. What’s the matter ? Leaving us so soon, can’t handle the heat in the kitchen, eh?
edit on 18-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



Of course there isn't a majority nobody said that (jumping to conclusions again), I actually said the thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (indicating majority) but there was still a lot sane people who agreed(like 5, thats still more than expected). I'm just not going to argue because it's like one dude vs 348398 truthers, obviously it gets exausting. Now quit provoking me, I'm done here.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
WTC 7 was an implosion. It is pretty obvious when you look at the video in slow motion. You can see individual explosions happening inline on different floors. WTC 1 and WTC 2 were also implosions. All three of those buildings sat down perfectly, perfect implosions.I was EOD when I was in the military, and we watched 100's of videos of bridges being blown up, and buildings being imploded, and vehicles being blown up. I don't care how much damage those planes did to WTC 1 and WTC 2. They would not have caused those buildings to implode. And what about the plane into WTC 7? Oh wait, no plane crashed into WTC 7? It collapsed by osmosis?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


So you've decided to dodge the video i posted and the question in the last post on the page previous to this.

The Atennae sunk first before the perimetre walls began to sag.

How do you explain that. In the post i replied to you said the perimetre walls sunk first because of the floors sagging.

Then how would the Spire Sag before the Tower?

That means The Core Columns were cut.
Turn Volume Off the Songs annoying and has swearing(expletives) WARNING




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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job


You just contradicted yourself again

Of course there isn't a majority nobody said that (jumping to conclusions again), I actually said the thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (indicating majority)


Twisting words again?


but there was still a lot sane people who agreed(like 5, thats still more than expected).

So far you have admitted to 5 out of 350 million people in the United States, that believes and supports the OS of 911.

I'm just not going to argue because it's like one dude vs 348398 truthers, obviously it gets exausting. Now quit provoking me, I'm done here.


Can’t handle the heat in the kitchen I see, and as for provoking posters, the fact is you have done plenty in your own thread.
edit on 18-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Look, forget WTC 7.

It's not going to be argued here, because its damning to the OP's case.

I've been here for hours and I keep getting silence in an attempt to intelligently resolve some pretty critical details that not one of the official investigations even investigated.

Like why the POTUS was allowed to sit in that classroom for a full 10 minutes before being evacuated to safety.

Or why no Air Force planes were scrambled from anywhere for a full 90 minutes after the attack.

Or why Larry Silverstein would say they agreed to 'pull' it, while speaking of the collapse of WTC 7, even though certain debunkers have claimed he was speaking of the 'operation' not the building.

It's selective sight at its finest...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 





I'm just not going to argue because it's like one dude vs 348398 truthers,


Make that two dudes.

It gets a little old spittig the same words at a brick wall. I personally do not hang around the 9/11 section. The reason................look at some of the posts here in your thread.

It is kind of fun though, when I am bored. I get a kick out of all of the attacking troll comments that come by.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



but I'm glad a lot of sane people realize that 911 wasn't an inside job


You just contradicted yourself again

Of course there isn't a majority nobody said that (jumping to conclusions again), I actually said the thread would be crawling with conspiracy theorists (indicating majority)


Twisting words again?


but there was still a lot sane people who agreed(like 5, thats still more than expected).

So far you have admitted to 5 out of 350 million people in the United States, that believes and supports the OS of 911.

I'm just not going to argue because it's like one dude vs 348398 truthers, obviously it gets exausting. Now quit provoking me, I'm done here.


Can’t handle the heat in the kitchen I see, and as for provoking posters, the fact is you have done plenty in your own thread.
edit on 18-6-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)




Your comparing 5 people in this thread to 350 million people around the world? this is why people laugh at truthers, NO LOGIC now QUIT RESPONDNG AND PROVOKING ME because its clear you're mad about losing. I don't have time to fight off 3483948 truthers all day, be gone with your delusional cooky nut job conspiracy self.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

[color=gold]Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008
University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
www.SeaLane.org
www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe

ABSTRACT
In a sheet responding to FAQs they published in 2006, NIST gave a brief rationale for avoiding the important issue of controlled demolition in the studies of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, which they concluded were brought down by the plane impacts and subsequent fire. They avoided mentioning Building 7, another World Trade Center building that collapsed but without any impact from a plane. The facts, which NIST claimed justified their failure to investigate that issue for the towers, are challenged as being incorrect. The evidence for and implications of the issue of controlled demolition of the towers are addressed.
NIST's Brief Answer as to Why They Avoided Investigating Questions on Controlled Demolition

www.sealane.org...

I highly recommend everyone read this report which helps to understand why NIST Report is seriously flawed.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
It's easy to win an argument when you refuse to engage the core of an opponents argument, opting instead to ignore or personally ridicule them.

The official story makes as little sense as the holographic plane theory.

The truth is somewhere between them, and something few are prepared to deal with, conspiracy theorist or not.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Game over.



You going to deny all this eye witness testimony? And all this expert opinion?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join