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: 25
23
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Okay, I won't bash your opinion, but this yarn is about as ludicrous as the official story.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


With all respect, the melting steel argument IS a crock. I am no "truther" believing every theory. Far from it. Steel may MELT above the temps JP can achieve..but melting wasn't needed to drop the towers. Only a serious weakining was required. One floor, in fact, is all it took.. then it pancacked to the bottom. THAT much I'll agree with. The towers were identical in every way. Every beam, bolt and concrete slab were made as mirrors...so they dropped the same way..and by DESIGN..by the way. Those buildings WERE designed to drop inside their own footprint..so THAT part I don't have any issue with..on the face of it. I bought the whole story, as I said...until I saw the video of #7. That shot the whole thing to hell...and no way that had a damned thing to do with the planes going into the towers..NOR was there time to plant the charges that made THAT implosion drop possible. No.... Bldg 7 was a HUGE screw up..and it blows the whole story on how that morning happened.


The steel didn't need to melt for the building to fall, this is true. However, you are ignoring THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF LIQUID MOLTEN STEEL. EXPLAIN THAT!
wakeupfromyourslumber.com... here is the picture, and witness testimony
edit on 18-6-2011 by renegadeloser because: to add



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 





It's called physics there was not enough weight in the above sections of the building to "implode" the bottom of the buildings. To suggest this happened without the help of explosives is physically impossible.


See my post a few pages back.

Do you know what an I-beam clip is?

You keep spitting the same old crap..................Lets talk I-beam clips and how they support the beams....I laid it out pretty simple....None of you want to talk of the one side that only had 1 single bolt on the I-beam clip.....Not two.

Here is an example of an I-beam clip that holds the two beams together.



Notice the two bolt holes?

This is similar to what was used on the towers. One side of the building had two bolts and the other side had only one bolt holding it together.........

You know what........I have been sitting here researching this........................ again. Just so I know I have my facts straight, unlike other members around....... I am tired of trying to sift through all of the bs that the truthers are tainting the facts with. It is impossible to find any information. This is really ridiculous......I try Googling some information and all that pops up is truther this and truther that....It takes hours to go through the BS. It is late and I am done.

You do the research. I am out...Have a nice day...... I am tired of waistng my time. This is why I do not bother to visit the messed up 9/11 forum.

You people will never find "your" truth.....It is all tainted with the stinch of crap.


edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: takes


Wow ok, how many i-beams clips were used to make the building? Explain how in seconds they all magically pulverize into dust?

Also see in your diagram the beam perpendicular to it's connect. It's cut so it is resting on the inside of the beam. That also denies that they simply gave way and disappeared in record timing.

In addition, stumble and research before you post. Verify what you want like you said. I'm sitting here so sure of what I am talking about. I am casually glancing at that posts while watching football relaxing on a Sunday afternoon. don't stress too much. The truth was a lot for me to handle too, at the start.




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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
perhaps we should factor in the likelyhood that the top 15 floors had a leading edge (the plane impact floor) that was spiked with steel columns that acted as spikes/ jagged projections in penetrating the floors below...
making the lower floor slabs weaker as the intact weight & mass of the top portion completely disintegrated the floors as the structure fell to Earth.

ergo... the top 15 or so floors were generally intact all the way to the ground where it itself finally 'disintegrated'



that would be completely different than the imagined solid surface floor coming down like a frying pan on the floor below... and creating a 'pancake' progression of collapse.





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

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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
even if the upper floors acted like a syringe and compressed every floor out the windows as it was coming to the ground and all the floors were made out of vermiculite, it sill does not account for all the core columns and the staircases being ejected from the inside of the buildings and leaving an empty core???

where did the core columns go? how did they get outside the building???? they were all tied together on 4 corners shorter than the outside fly trap which would have made them even stronger, and surely an aluminum plane never breached them????


a shock-wave from the basements breached the cores and the releasing agents used at the upper floors allowed the collapse. the airplanes were merely a diversion and in no way a culprit



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 





Wow ok, how many i-beams clips were used to make the building?


I do not have the schematics here with me right now but I would guess. Thousands.




Explain how in seconds they all magically pulverize into dust?


Where are you getting this dust thing from? All of the photos I have seen, there is wreckage, massive piles of wreckage. I believe your(or someone else's) dust comment was addressed earlier, by the author of this thread.. But that figures, you do not want to pay attention to that.




Also see in your diagram the beam perpendicular to it's connect. It's cut so it is resting on the inside of the beam. That also denies that they simply gave way and disappeared in record timing.


I believe I said that it was an example and similar. Not exact. This means tht they can be orientated differently, be different sizes, etc.......... I was using it as an example of what an I- beam clip is. Obviously it is not one of the Twin Towers beams.....You did know that right.....?


Definition of SIMILAR

1: having characteristics in common : strictly comparable
2: alike in substance or essentials : corresponding
3: not differing in shape but only in size or position



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Don't you fimd it rather odd all three buildings fell in their Own Footprint?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


See, this is why average americans are considered so stupid around the world. Posts like these.

A little info for ya, A building does not free fall if it happens naturally. Do you know what free fall is? You might need to look it up.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Yes you admit thousands of ibeam clips, not to mention all the steel beams and concrete on top of that. How did they disappear? You are not answering the question?

You admit your diagram is not exact. I did know it wasn't the beams from the twin towers, I was more criticizing the fact that these objects just disappeared. but again you admit you know how they disappeared? But you won't tell us?

You spent time researching, only to show a diagram of the framework that wasn't a true representation of the real ones, to make your point valid. that's disinformation not really fact.

You claim to know everything yet you would rather bring up bolts and frames against basic physics. great work there.

Why don't you debate us on the physics and tell me how each floor and all of it's contents just disappeared?

if you say weight I'm going to laugh my ass off, because that will validate that you have no clue.

Also did you just say Jeopardy would make me smart? Really? You are kidding right?









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



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
To liejunkie01,

I suggest you read this and learn a little bit hey?


Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by nh_ee

Physics 101 - Statics



Basic elementary physics explains why this isn't feasible.

For a couple of reasons.

If it collapsed due to fatigue as we are being told. It wouldn't occur evenly.
In order for something to fall straight down as it did, the supporting structure would need to be removed evenly...as in controlled demolition.
Otherwise if collapsing due to fatique, the weaker side, where the plane struck would collapse first.

Secondly, due to the conservation of energy.
The top 15 floors did not weigh more than the bottom 85 floors + 6 floors of foundation.

In Physics 101 we are taught this via what are called Free Body Diagrams which described the forces on a body under gravity.

They look like this:




Where N is the Normal the forces pushing upwards due to the strength of the object.
Where F is the Force pushing downward due to gravity and it's weight or mass

F= ma


In this example we would use Block A as representing the top floors that collapsed coming down on Block B.

Which represents the opposing 85 Floors + 6 Floors of Foundation pushing upwards.

You'd calculate the forces of each. And in summary simply due to the major differences in Mass.

Even though block A is moving it still would not exceed the forces pushing upwards represented by B.

Which is where the Architects and Engineers calculations can provide details and numbers of ...

You can test this theory by creating a tower of 11 cinder blocks for example.

1 cinder block representing 10 stories of the WTC.

1 cinder block on top is lifted up a few inches representing the distance the top floors traveled initially due to the collapse of the story.

Now Drop this top cinder block on the bottom 10 cinder blocks.

The forces pushing downward would be opposed by the forces pushing upwards which were far greater and would not collapse the bottom 10 cinder blocks...but at most, might damage one slightly.

Because the forces would be absorbed by the entire structure and not only the single cinder block being impacted.

Plain and Simple.


But this is what they were counting on.
How many Americans even understand Physics for example ?

I mean, looking at all of my suburban neighbors, Avg working Americans....most due not have a clue.
When it comes to math and science...

That was the whole basis of the Fraud of 911. Televised Shock and Awe to a gullible uneducated population.

War is a Racket.


just an example of how the OP has no idea and gets ripped on his own thread.

one day he will wake up. Keep it up fellow "truthers"
edit on 18-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 





How did they disappear?






What is your definition of disapear? I see acres of debris. Why do you keep saying everything is turned into dust?

Yes there was dust. Alot of dust......Not everything turned to dust and disapeared.






You claim to know everything yet you would rather bring up bolts and frames against basic physics. great work there.


I brought up how the towers were constructed......

I believe that I also stated that they were subjected to stresses outside of their design capabilities....."Bolts and frames" make up the whole structure...This is relevant to why they collapsed.

Did you do the physics calculations? Or are you taking someones "word" for it?




Why don't you debate us on the physics and tell me how each floor and all of it's contents just disappeared?


Again here is the disapeared thing again.......Refer to the pictures above.....I see plenty of debris....Debris that was once the floors, concrete, file cabinets, desks, phones, etc.etc.....well you get the picture.......Don't you?

It is debris....Smashed, crumbled, twisted, and yes some(alot) pulverized.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


One more thing before I go to bed.

You claim to know physics...

Why do you claim that everything disappeared?

Quit preaching physics when you make no sense............Stories high debris piles and you say everything disappeared????????????????



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


PLEASE EXPLAIN

why the smaller building next to the twin towers collapsed when it had no reason too?
and why the hole in the pentagon could not have been caused by a boeing..(way to small, damage resembled and explosion not a collision)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


To those of you that believe that 911 was a cut and dry. What we saw is what we got. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The first and most obvious point about 911 and the farce that it is. The GOV had no intent of investigating any of it. The only reason the 911 commission report even exists is because of a group of women that pushed for it. Our Gov investigates everything with a fine tooth comb. But something huge like this and no investigation? Something was wrong from the start.

The physics are that you are talking about are well inaccurate to say the least. Riddle me this if the weight of the top of the towers were so heavy and they crumbled not one but two of the towers almost identically. Why sir did the tops of those building not fall side to side? You mean to tell me that the tops of those building were so heavy that it caused both twin towers to crumble like a cookie? That both building were damaged so badly that the entire structure failed. Nothing solid anywhere in the building that change the direction of the collapsing towers? I think sir you need to look further into the story than that. Ok so lets say I give you your theory on one building. What do you think the chances are that not only did Tower one Fall that way but Tower 2 than building 7 all falling identically the same way. I have a better chance of hitting the lottery twice. Than for that scenario to be accurate.

The Fuel down the elevator shaft theory. You can forget that too. Most of the fuel burned up in the actual impact of the planes. You did see the huge explosion right? How much fuel do you think was in that plane? Not enough to weaken the entire structure. BTW you do know the the original engineers built that building to withstand that kind of damage?

There are thousands of building engineers that would say your theory is empty. The only way that your top down theory would be absolutely 100% correct is if both towers were completely hollow. Your theory suggests that the both towers were damaged in exactly the same way. The towers fell identically. No difference between either. For your theory to actually work all columns on both building at the point of impact would have had to fail at almost the exact same time for both towers to free fall straight to the basement.

Now WTC 7 Realize this. WTC 7 was 2 blocks away from the towers with WTC 6 And WTC 5 between them. How sir can you explain WTC 7 collapsing but 6 and 5 still standing. See Pic infowars.net...

Why are there still so many questions? Why is the Gov not cooperation on a full scale investigation? If you have nothing to hide you would think that our GOV would have viciously launched a full scale investigation?

And Last but not least. Just today a plane flew into Dc's airspace and they had aircraft up and protecting Dc in under ten minutes. For some odd reason. That day we couldn't even find a fighter jet. Andrews air force base is a stones throw away.

For you to sit down and try to debunk the inside job theory, you had to have questioned something about what you saw. Your post in itself proves to everyone here that something is telling you to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong and the attempt to make yourself feel better about the small chance that it may have been an inside job and the Gov is lieing. Drives that point home!!

Any questions? Do your homework



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


LOL so this guy thinks that his theories actually outsmart actual physics. Because he has a diagram. I have a picture of a million bucks. Doesn't make me a millionaire.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bftroop
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


To those of you that believe that 911 was a cut and dry. What we saw is what we got. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The first and most obvious point about 911 and the farce that it is. The GOV had no intent of investigating any of it. The only reason the 911 commission report even exists is because of a group of women that pushed for it. Our Gov investigates everything with a fine tooth comb. But something huge like this and no investigation? Something was wrong from the start.

The physics are that you are talking about are well inaccurate to say the least. Riddle me this if the weight of the top of the towers were so heavy and they crumbled not one but two of the towers almost identically. Why sir did the tops of those building not fall side to side? You mean to tell me that the tops of those building were so heavy that it caused both twin towers to crumble like a cookie? That both building were damaged so badly that the entire structure failed. Nothing solid anywhere in the building that change the direction of the collapsing towers? I think sir you need to look further into the story than that. Ok so lets say I give you your theory on one building. What do you think the chances are that not only did Tower one Fall that way but Tower 2 than building 7 all falling identically the same way. I have a better chance of hitting the lottery twice. Than for that scenario to be accurate.

The Fuel down the elevator shaft theory. You can forget that too. Most of the fuel burned up in the actual impact of the planes. You did see the huge explosion right? How much fuel do you think was in that plane? Not enough to weaken the entire structure. BTW you do know the the original engineers built that building to withstand that kind of damage?

There are thousands of building engineers that would say your theory is empty. The only way that your top down theory would be absolutely 100% correct is if both towers were completely hollow. Your theory suggests that the both towers were damaged in exactly the same way. The towers fell identically. No difference between either. For your theory to actually work all columns on both building at the point of impact would have had to fail at almost the exact same time for both towers to free fall straight to the basement.

Now WTC 7 Realize this. WTC 7 was 2 blocks away from the towers with WTC 6 And WTC 5 between them. How sir can you explain WTC 7 collapsing but 6 and 5 still standing. See Pic infowars.net...

Why are there still so many questions? Why is the Gov not cooperation on a full scale investigation? If you have nothing to hide you would think that our GOV would have viciously launched a full scale investigation?

And Last but not least. Just today a plane flew into Dc's airspace and they had aircraft up and protecting Dc in under ten minutes. For some odd reason. That day we couldn't even find a fighter jet. Andrews air force base is a stones throw away.

For you to sit down and try to debunk the inside job theory, you had to have questioned something about what you saw. Your post in itself proves to everyone here that something is telling you to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong and the attempt to make yourself feel better about the small chance that it may have been an inside job and the Gov is lieing. Drives that point home!!

Any questions? Do your homework



I'll come back to this thread to address this one post. I never said it was JUST the weight of the top, it was that, mixed with weakening trusses below it bending and causing an inward bowing. Plus why would the government care about the scientific aspect of things right after the event when they were trying to get to get the man responsible? That makes no sense...And the jet fuel IGNITED flames that raged through many floors, it wasn't just the jet fuel itself that caused the damage, it was the contents of the offices that fueled the fire. And EVERY witness and EVERY firefighter knew the building was going to collapse well before it did because of the structural failure, answer me this, why use explosives (which are instantaneous and show NO signs of warning) when it is clear to ALL the witnesses that it was going to collapse? Have you ever seen one demolition where there was an explosion, then another one a minute later, then a few more like the eye witnesses say? No, the whole thing ALWAYS takes a few seconds. There is no way there needed to be explosives in the building because every person on the scene knew it was coming down, something you wouldn't know in a controlled demolition unless you were in on it. Were all the eye witnesses in on it? Give me a break, there is no logic to the controlled demolition theory.
edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


He actually said Pull "IT". He did not say pull them as in people. And you make a good point. How did they get the explosives in there? They were already in place just like the towers. You ever find out who got paid to do it. Nope. Do you have a diagram? Cause that would prove it all.

BTW you do realize that there are all kinds of firefighters and police officers that flat out said they heard explosions as all of those buildings collapsed. No not on the next day but right after they collapsed. Funny how eyewitnesses have no baring on the truth. Well except in a court of law.

Do your homework.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bftroop
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


He actually said Pull "IT". He did not say pull them as in people. And you make a good point. How did they get the explosives in there? They were already in place just like the towers. You ever find out who got paid to do it. Nope. Do you have a diagram? Cause that would prove it all.

BTW you do realize that there are all kinds of firefighters and police officers that flat out said they heard explosions as all of those buildings collapsed. No not on the next day but right after they collapsed. Funny how eyewitnesses have no baring on the truth. Well except in a court of law.

Do your homework.




I have done my homework, if you would have done yours you would know by "it" he meant the contingent of firefighters. And all sorts off witnesses heard explosions, but there are MANY things they could have been besides bombs. And once more, there isn't a controlled demolition where a bomb goes off, then another a few seconds, later, then few others a minute later ....controlled demolitions happen in a matter of seconds. Just use your brain, how did they all know it was going to come down, if explosives were used? Were they all in on it? Give me a break please.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by bftroop
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


To those of you that believe that 911 was a cut and dry. What we saw is what we got. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The first and most obvious point about 911 and the farce that it is. The GOV had no intent of investigating any of it. The only reason the 911 commission report even exists is because of a group of women that pushed for it. Our Gov investigates everything with a fine tooth comb. But something huge like this and no investigation? Something was wrong from the start.

The physics are that you are talking about are well inaccurate to say the least. Riddle me this if the weight of the top of the towers were so heavy and they crumbled not one but two of the towers almost identically. Why sir did the tops of those building not fall side to side? You mean to tell me that the tops of those building were so heavy that it caused both twin towers to crumble like a cookie? That both building were damaged so badly that the entire structure failed. Nothing solid anywhere in the building that change the direction of the collapsing towers? I think sir you need to look further into the story than that. Ok so lets say I give you your theory on one building. What do you think the chances are that not only did Tower one Fall that way but Tower 2 than building 7 all falling identically the same way. I have a better chance of hitting the lottery twice. Than for that scenario to be accurate.

The Fuel down the elevator shaft theory. You can forget that too. Most of the fuel burned up in the actual impact of the planes. You did see the huge explosion right? How much fuel do you think was in that plane? Not enough to weaken the entire structure. BTW you do know the the original engineers built that building to withstand that kind of damage?

There are thousands of building engineers that would say your theory is empty. The only way that your top down theory would be absolutely 100% correct is if both towers were completely hollow. Your theory suggests that the both towers were damaged in exactly the same way. The towers fell identically. No difference between either. For your theory to actually work all columns on both building at the point of impact would have had to fail at almost the exact same time for both towers to free fall straight to the basement.

Now WTC 7 Realize this. WTC 7 was 2 blocks away from the towers with WTC 6 And WTC 5 between them. How sir can you explain WTC 7 collapsing but 6 and 5 still standing. See Pic infowars.net...

Why are there still so many questions? Why is the Gov not cooperation on a full scale investigation? If you have nothing to hide you would think that our GOV would have viciously launched a full scale investigation?

And Last but not least. Just today a plane flew into Dc's airspace and they had aircraft up and protecting Dc in under ten minutes. For some odd reason. That day we couldn't even find a fighter jet. Andrews air force base is a stones throw away.

For you to sit down and try to debunk the inside job theory, you had to have questioned something about what you saw. Your post in itself proves to everyone here that something is telling you to prove the conspiracy theorists wrong and the attempt to make yourself feel better about the small chance that it may have been an inside job and the Gov is lieing. Drives that point home!!

Any questions? Do your homework



I'll come back to this thread to address this one post. I never said it was JUST the weight of the top, it was that, mixed with weakening trusses below it bending and causing an inward bowing. Plus why would the government care about the scientific aspect of things right after the event when they were trying to get to get the man responsible? That makes no sense...And the jet fuel IGNITED flames that raged through many floors, it wasn't just the jet fuel itself that caused the damage, it was the contents of the offices that fueled the fire. And EVERY witness and EVERY firefighter knew the building was going to collapse well before it did because of the structural failure, answer me this, why use explosives (which are instantaneous and show NO signs of warning) when it is clear to ALL the witnesses that it was going to collapse?


First of all When a plane runs into a tall building like that. There is always the possibility that it "could" collapse no one knew it was going to. Secondly those same firefighters have also been on camera a few minutes after all the buildings collapsed and said and I quote "I heard it go boom, boom, boom, boom and the building started to fall. Ever think about why most of that footage of those firefighters were only aired that day? Yup The GOV Shut that down quick.

For the weight of the top of those tower to make that building fall perfectly to the ground. You would have to have had one floor implode at almost the same exact time for the damaged part of the tower to not fall to left or right. And for those buildings to all fall exactly the same way and take exactly the same damage and fall at almost exactly the same rate. Like I said I have a better chance of hitting the mega millions twice in one day.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   






The terrorists had it planned to take down both buildings in the same fashion, therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that they came down in the same fashion. Building 7 came down in a similar way because the fire's from the burning debri (from initial jet fuel explosion) that landed on it ignited fires that reached different points of the building that were damaged and caused it to collapse. You need to remember that in theory it shouldn't have taken much to take the twin towers down due to what happened to them, but they were built very well and it's actually a surprise they stood as long as they did. Building 7 was poorly designed and had many flaws, a few raging fires knocking out a few of the main supports would completely explain the building's collapse.
edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join