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: 26
23
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
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????????????????


Yes, disappeared floor by floor. for the top of those buildings to "implode" the rest of the building like it did, i will state again for the 50th time in a row. The floors would have needed to have disappeared in record timing. Even if your little ibeam clips did fail. It wouldn't have looked like an implosion. It's your theories that are misleading and false.

You know what is funny, the way the buildings came down exactly the same, its the most impossible thing of all time to have two buildings come down the same without controlling the way they demolish. So your little ibeam clips made two buildings come down exactly the same way. Both buildings perfect complete free fall not one but both with complete similarity.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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.


LOL use my brain. They all knew it was coming down because a plane hit them. Yes the explosions that were heard were in succession. There is a huge reason that when you look up 911 on google you get nothing more than the truther movement. Because 911 is a lie. And you are one of the few that believes it is what it is. Again. You need to read more about what you are talking about. And yes you are challenging millions of people on this. It is a battle you cannot win. There are way too many inconsistancies. Homework my boy, Homework. We are the truthers you are the sheeple. Believe what you want, bottom line is. The GOV is hiding it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bftroop

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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.


LOL use my brain. They all knew it was coming down because a plane hit them. Yes the explosions that were heard were in succession. There is a huge reason that when you look up 911 on google you get nothing more than the truther movement. Because 911 is a lie. And you are one of the few that believes it is what it is. Again. You need to read more about what you are talking about. And yes you are challenging millions of people on this. It is a battle you cannot win. There are way too many inconsistancies. Homework my boy, Homework. We are the truthers you are the sheeple. Believe what you want, bottom line is. The GOV is hiding it.




I am not one of the "few" who believe the official story, you have to realize that the internet is not real life. If you walk through a mall and ask people if they thought if 911 was an inside job, that the towers were brought down by explosives, that no plane hit the pentagon, and that elements of the government either allowed/caused it to happen, most people would laugh at you while only a handful will be blind sheep (assuming you're not biased and just choose young kids in their 20's). If you look on the news, and in real life, you are the minority that is laughed at. Wake up from the internet matrix.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   




"completely explains the buildings collapse"

wow, you're struggling to hold any credibility here. You just can't handle the truth? so you keep telling yourself the official sorry is legit.

What you said here shows me at least, you don't know what you're talking about.
edit on 19-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
And when polls state that most people think there needs to be another investigation, that's due to the safety regulations of buildings not because they think it's an inside job. Polls showing a cover up don't indicate an inside job either, because I believe there was a cover up but it was due to their incompetence...If they let people know they were that careless and vulnerable to let something like that happen, then the american people would lose faith in them and the system would collapse. No proof of inside job.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   





Well it explains the collapse to me it's not 100% (many experts disagree)...There is just no evidence of explosives needed when there were many tanks in he basement of the building that exploded , which makes sense due to what some people heard. You know how many flammable/explosive things that are kept in buildings? To think that you NEED bombs to account for explosions is outrages,



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Don't forget the trace amounts of thermite they found and the angled cut beams.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   




Not 100% hey? Tanks in the basement you say, how did they explode? Did they explode exactly when it collapsed. I don't think so. Government buildings and they had tanks that can be breached from floor fires. I don't think so. Yes you can clearly see from videos it was a controlled demolition. Not caused from fires.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
And when polls state that most people think there needs to be another investigation, that's due to the safety regulations of buildings not because they think it's an inside job. Polls showing a cover up don't indicate an inside job either, because I believe there was a cover up but it was due to their incompetence...If they let people know they were that careless and vulnerable to let something like that happen, then the american people would lose faith in them and the system would collapse. No proof of inside job.


There is plenty that believe it was an inside job and most of them used to be ignorant to the truth as well.
What your saying here is clear BS and disinformation. AGAIN!!!

There is plenty of proof you have been shown here but your more happy to battle us truthers.
For example the diagram about the physics 101. You replied and it was so amateurish what you said about it. It proved you have no idea. I had to quote and comment.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   





It's not clear to everybody, maybe you should research controlled demolitions and the issues surrounding these claims before you make assumptions.

Zero hallmarks of controlled demolition for the twin towers or WTC 7.



Building 7 explained reasonably without the use of any explosives.




edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
If you keep feeding the trolls they will end up exploding, 26 pages of disinfo and baiting...
DONT FEED THE TROLLS!!!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
If you keep feeding the trolls they will end up exploding, 26 pages of disinfo and baiting...
DONT FEED THE TROLLS!!!



I provide factual videos and apply logic, all you have is don't feed the trolls...looks like I win



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   




Yes all those videos show controlled demolition and implosion.

I don't think you really know what one looks like.

Building 7 hardly looked like it was raging with fires. Please do better. Windows pop first then steel melts. Unless again you want to deny physics and say I am wrong.

Was the sprinkler system shut off as well?

And look at the integrity of the buildings below the impact zone. Over 50% of the building intact and it some how defies physics, logic, science, fact and building standards to implode on itself and pulverize into dust.

and guy having a debate is not a troll. You call me a troll because I am debating your theory. Don't post if you can't handle the debate.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
If you keep feeding the trolls they will end up exploding, 26 pages of disinfo and baiting...
DONT FEED THE TROLLS!!!


Your trolling for trolls.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by bftroop

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.




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)


"completely explains the buildings collapse"

wow, you're struggling to hold any credibility here. You just can't handle the truth? so you keep telling yourself the official sorry is legit.

What you said here shows me at least, you don't know what you're talking about.
edit on 19-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)



Well it explains the collapse to me it's not 100% (many experts disagree)...There is just no evidence of explosives needed when there were many tanks in he basement of the building that exploded , which makes sense due to what some people heard. You know how many flammable/explosive things that are kept in buildings? To think that you NEED bombs to account for explosions is outrages,


Yes you can clearly see from videos it was a controlled demolition. Not caused from fires.




It's not clear to everybody, maybe you should research controlled demolitions and the issues surrounding these claims before you make assumptions.

Zero hallmarks of controlled demolition for the twin towers or WTC 7.



Building 7 explained reasonably without the use of any explosives.




edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Yes all those videos show controlled demolition and implosion.

I don't think you really know what one looks like.

Building 7 hardly looked like it was raging with fires. Please do better. Windows pop first then steel melts. Unless again you want to deny physics and say I am wrong.

Was the sprinkler system shut off as well?

And look at the integrity of the buildings below the impact zone. Over 50% of the building intact and it some how defies physics, logic, science, fact and building standards to implode on itself and pulverize into dust.

and guy having a debate is not a troll. You call me a troll because I am debating your theory. Don't post if you can't handle the debate.




If it defies physics and science then how come countless of NIST experts agree? And don't say they are being pushed by the government because the same thing was said about FEMA but they came up with the "pancake collapse" theory but that was proved false by the NIST report. You are saying the government is pushing two contradicting theories? No.


Here is a good quote I found:


"I've followed the truth movement since its beginning, and ever since then, I've asked this simple question: If you are so absolutely convinced that the government murdered thousands of your fellow citizens, why are you not revolting?

1) You either don't completely believe it, or

2) You are a coward.

#1 is the case for most conspiracy theorists. They love to proclaim what they believe and they say they believe it, but when it comes down to it, they really don't believe what they are saying."


I believe with all my heart that if you put a "truther" up against a poly graph it would come up a lie that he/she truly believed that a demolition team with hundreds of workers (that would have to be involved on the biggest conspiracy in history) spent weeks/months tearing down walls to get to columns without anyone knowing or spilling the beans to take down the towers in a controlled demolition roughly an hour after 2 hijacked planes hit it. I would bet everything I had it would come up a lie.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
People that "believe" in this stuff just have social issues and want to be accepted in a cult sort of fashion. This is why whenever a theory gets debunked they stick to it and look for otheer outrages explanations because that false sense of involvement within the truther's social structure is what's most important to them, not the truth itself.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Hahahaha, so the building is stable when it is fully intact. But when some of the top part breaks, the foundation suddenly is unable to support THE EXACT SAME WEIGHT?

Ok cool, got it.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
Hahahaha, so the building is stable when it is fully intact. But when some of the top part breaks, the foundation suddenly is unable to support THE EXACT SAME WEIGHT?

Ok cool, got it.



No you don't "got it" because if you did you would know the building was not stable when it was fully intact like you claim it was. How an intelligent person can call damaged support points that were weakened before the collapse "stable" is beyond me.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Riposte
Hahahaha, so the building is stable when it is fully intact. But when some of the top part breaks, the foundation suddenly is unable to support THE EXACT SAME WEIGHT?

Ok cool, got it.



No you don't "got it" because if you did you would know the building was not stable when it was fully intact like you claim it was. How an intelligent person can call damaged support points that were weakened before the collapse "stable" is beyond me.


Stop spreading fantasies. The building was just fine.

Indeed, the structural damage at the top could not have caused this effect. The buildings foundation were not damaged by fire according to your theory. There was not enough kinetic energy to support a near free fall acceleration, the floors would have slowed down the collapse.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by Riposte
Hahahaha, so the building is stable when it is fully intact. But when some of the top part breaks, the foundation suddenly is unable to support THE EXACT SAME WEIGHT?

Ok cool, got it.



No you don't "got it" because if you did you would know the building was not stable when it was fully intact like you claim it was. How an intelligent person can call damaged support points that were weakened before the collapse "stable" is beyond me.


The building was just fine.





You talk about fantasies but think that this looks "just fine"?





Every witness on the scene had a feeling it was going to collapse, fire fighters were pulled from the building because there was nothing they could do and they all knew it was coming down, therefore eliminating any reason to assume explosives were needed.




top topics



 
23
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join