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: 35
23
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Wrong ,why do I say that because 2 of the buildings were hit by aircraft and the other was damage by falling debris, they are not the only steel buildings to have collapsed by fire! and some buildings have had total or partial collapse ONLY due to fire and NO AIRCRAFT,the thing YOU SEEM to forget about 9/11.


Care to give a source for that?
We had a 24h+ fire on a building here in spain, and guess what...
However, we are still lead to believe this strange occurence (full collapse-pulverization of a steel building, on its footprint mostly, nearly at freefall speed) happened not just once, nor twice, but 3 times the same day. Now, how dumb they really think we are?




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
And I asked why nobody from the demo team that planted the explosives has come out to make millions.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Make millions that you will never use... because you would have an unfortunate "accident".



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Now where is that evidence of the demo folks?


Er the impossible physics that we have tried to explain to you over and over?

Sorry but there is no way on Earth that the planes compromised the structure bellow where they impacted.

The planes do not explain the lack of resistance from undamaged structure. They don't explain how the buildings managed to defy the laws of motion. The only thing that can explain that is that there was another energy source acting on the towers that was not considered in the investigation.

According to NIST the collapse was caused by the trusses sagging from heat and pulling in columns, the only connection to the plane is the fire. IF the planes had damaged the core it would still not be able to completely collapse itself through the path of most resistance (all the undamaged floors and columns).

Plane crashes and fires do not make the laws of psychics change.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
i just saw this in another thread - it's a must for truthers and deniers alike -

Debunk this!



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
And I asked why nobody from the demo team that planted the explosives has come out to make millions.


How would they make millions?

How do you know they didn't make millions for rigging the WTC buildings? They would have to have been payed pretty damn well to even consider doing it right?

How do you know the riggers were not as politically, or economically motivated, to carry out the attacks as those who planned it?

Stop with the excuses, if we never question TPTB we are nothing but slaves.


edit on 6/21/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Actually Bob there have been a few

Kader Toy Factory all steel building about 4 stories high total collapse.

Look for Madrid Hotel Fire partial steelwork collapse concrete survived .



You can see the collapsed steelwork in the picture.

Mandarin Hotel Beijing hotel fire partial steelwork collapse again concrete survived. ALL the steelwork was replaced the concrete structure held it up.

www.mediabistro.com...

From above link


planning to remove most of the steel and decorative portions of the building and reconstructing it based on the original plans using its still-intact and relatively healthy concrete bones



Also consider none of these buildings had a plane crash into them before the fire!

Also the steelwork construction was different ALL these building were not tube in tube like WTC.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You don't see a major difference between those buildings and the WTC buildings?

You don't understand the difference between a partial and total collapse?

All these years you've been here and you are still confused?

Yes the Madrid building is what the towers should have looked like. How is this proving the OS is correct in any way?

Collapsing roofs is not the same as an implosion demolition that causes the outer walls to fall inwards to land on top of the collapsed building.

When you post stuff like this it just shows your confusion.
edit on 6/21/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


oh come on you cant be serous!

Those building partially collapsed, that image you link to is a joke... it's still standing and burnt for something like 21 hours, not 1 hour

Debunkers you have to see this


edit on 21-6-2011 by doubledutch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



I don't know how the Two Towers both collapsed into their footprints when the lower portions of both towers were still intact. There should have been some resistance from the lower portions of both towers when the upper portions came down. How did the structural supports in both towers fail at exactly the same time, all throughout the building and then all the way down when each tower was hit in two very different locations?

The first tower hit was high up and almost dead center. There were more floors beneath the impact zone that were still intact. Those few floors above were enough to bring down the entire tower?

The second tower hit was hit near one of the corners almost half way up the building. When that building fell, it should have fallen toward that corner. In the video footage, it seems to start to fall over toward the corner, but then it miraculously straightens up and continues to fall evenly all the way down.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but supposedly the fire inside the building (I say inside the building because we couldn't see any fire outside), the fire inside the building caused the collapse, but again it caused the building's structural support to fail all at the same time throughout the building and that's why the building collapsed evenly all the way down.

That is why I'm not buying the "official story".



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Actually Bob there have been a few

Kader Toy Factory all steel building about 4 stories high total collapse.

Look for Madrid Hotel Fire partial steelwork collapse concrete survived .



You can see the collapsed steelwork in the picture.

Mandarin Hotel Beijing hotel fire partial steelwork collapse again concrete survived. ALL the steelwork was replaced the concrete structure held it up.

www.mediabistro.com...

From above link


planning to remove most of the steel and decorative portions of the building and reconstructing it based on the original plans using its still-intact and relatively healthy concrete bones



Also consider none of these buildings had a plane crash into them before the fire!

Also the steelwork construction was different ALL these building were not tube in tube like WTC.







Yep that picture of the windsor gives us the full image, after more than 24 hours of fire and rage, the building is still there. You may think some trusses should have failed, or some concrete pulverisation, but nah, must be us spaniards making better skyscrappers than you americans...
BTW the part that fell off was some extra "addon" to the main structure, as you can see, main columns and all still stand, but after 9/11 Id expect some kind of pancake collapse, dont you?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
the kader toy factory isn't even the same type of building. 4 stories high?. it was made of UNINSULATED steel, no sprinkler system for fires, and the fire was fed by plastic,toy stuffing and a strong wind (strong enough to cause two other buildings to catch fire). the steel girders were much smaller than the ones in the twin towers, and no pools of molten steel were left burning for months. the fire started on the bottom floor (unlike the twin towers), and all the products were contained in the 2,3, and 4th floors. heat rises. no complete symmetrical collapse.

so how is it similar again?

yup, i've seen the madrid hotel fire. about 5% of the top was damaged. where is the symmetrical collapse? it was a much worse fire than the twin towers had, and engulfed the building, but its still there! so your point is?

neither of those examples resemble the type of collapse the twin towers had. if you can even say the madrid hotel "collapsed".


edit on 21-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: spelling



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Originally posted by esdad71
Now where is that evidence of the demo folks?
So what kind of evidence for explosive demolitions would convince you?
Explosive sounds being heard and felt by witnesses?
How about explosive sounds being recorded while witnesses commented on them?
Perhaps high pressure expulsions, or squibs, being witnessed and filmed?
Maybe video and audio evidence of same, squibs?
Explosive sounds being heard before and during collapse sequence?
Molten metal before and after collapse found and commented on by witnesses and recorded on both video and still images?
And if all that isn't enough then perhaps explosive residue being found in the dust would do it.

I would say that evidence of explosive demotions is not the problem.

What evidence of explosive demolition was left out? Actually finding the unexploded devices before hand? Perhaps there is a receipt for the purchase of this material laying around in W's car?

edit on 6/21/2011 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71

Now where is that evidence of the demo folks?


Er the impossible physics that we have tried to explain to you over and over?

Sorry but there is no way on Earth that the planes compromised the structure bellow where they impacted.

The planes do not explain the lack of resistance from undamaged structure. They don't explain how the buildings managed to defy the laws of motion. The only thing that can explain that is that there was another energy source acting on the towers that was not considered in the investigation.

According to NIST the collapse was caused by the trusses sagging from heat and pulling in columns, the only connection to the plane is the fire. IF the planes had damaged the core it would still not be able to completely collapse itself through the path of most resistance (all the undamaged floors and columns).

Plane crashes and fires do not make the laws of psychics change.


We are not talking physics or washer models here...
. We are talking about how CD was not needed to bring down the towers. Stay on topic and stop trying to derail threads and get stars. Now, you say there is NO way on Earth but it happened. Because as you state, if the buildings defied the laws of motions they would be suspended in mid air because no matter how you try to contrive the law, gravity was not missing that day. How do i know? From watching people jump to their deaths.

A CD needs core columns destroyed...this happened on 9/11 as well as outer columns with the plane impact and ensuing fires. Therefore, CD was not needed as the OP states.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Reply to Devino

So what kind of evidence for explosive demolitions would convince you? Physical evidence

Explosive sounds being heard and felt by witnesses? a 100 story building is collapsing. You think it did not 'sound' or feel like explosions?

How about explosive sounds being recorded while witnesses commented on them? You may be referring to video taken 'after' the collapses that are touted as during. There were several explosions throughout the day that firefighters also describe as transformers, cars and gas leaks to name a few...

Perhaps high pressure expulsions, or squibs, being witnessed and filmed? Puffs of smoke as the building collapses? Watch a CD...the squibs fire...these is a pause...and it collapses...

Explosive sounds being heard before and during collapse sequence? See the other answer

Maybe video and audio evidence of same, squibs? What is it with you and the same things??? LOL

Molten metal before and after collapse found and commented on by witnesses and recorded on both video and still images? There is NO evidence of molten metal prior to collapse unless you are talking about the video of the aluminum pouring from the side of the building...do a little research here.

And if all that isn't enough then perhaps explosive residue being found in the dust would do it? Mr Jones, right? You mean the Bush supporter turned 9/11 truther who was not peer reviewed and tested a paint chip. Fairy tales my man.

W's car...awww...so here is the truth behind the hate and the wanting to blame that which you hate. Mr GW. I mean, how can you guys call him so dumb yet smart enough to pull off 9/11?

If you want a conspiracy to chase here, look into Mineta and Cheney and the shoot down of 93. There are 3 people involved in the entire operation. Mineta testifying that an unidentified airman told him Cheney said to stand down....but we know that did not happen. That is a conspiracy...3 people...no holes...nothing to challenge.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Now what I find funny here is no one ever mentions this fire.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is one of three tube on frame structures built in the US including the WTC and the John Hancock building. That's it for this type of tube design but why did that one survive a fire? In fact, 2 of them...because planes did not hit them just like the electrical fire in the WTC.

A simple fire would not have brought them down.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 

The last one about the receipt in George's car was a joke.

As for the molten aluminum I don't see this, I see molten metal of a different type as is the consensus of the witnesses who have made the comments.

I understand that all of these physical signs of evidence for explosive demolition can be explain without the need for explosives yet this is still evidence in favor of explosive demolitions that you asked for.
edit on 6/21/2011 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


even if that was aluminum, it is still indicative of temperatures hotter than the fires in the towers. you see, if you were to weld aluminum, it looks like a liquid mirror puddle. This is because the temperature required to melt it is lower than the temperature it starts to glow orange (which is pretty much the same for all metals). That orange white trickle means that it was around 2200-2500 degrees F. possibly in the 2800F range.

and why are you ignoring all the molten steel in pictures after the collapse? it was found in wtc 7 also. doesn't it make more sense for the presence of molten steel from thermate to be found AFTER the buildings are demolished, not before?

also, you say just a fire wouldn't bring down the towers, and i agree. so what would you say about wtc 7? if you follow your own logic, you must assume it took something more. the damage from the towers falling was minimal, and wouldn't affect the structure of the building substantially.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Now what I find funny here is no one ever mentions this fire.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is one of three tube on frame structures built in the US including the WTC and the John Hancock building. That's it for this type of tube design but why did that one survive a fire? In fact, 2 of them...because planes did not hit them just like the electrical fire in the WTC.

A simple fire would not have brought them down.


Oh, so the if a building doesn't have a plane crash into it the fires can not get hot enough to cause the trusses to sag, and pull in the much larger columns they were attached to? Or the laws of motion only apply if it's just a fire, a plane crashing into it changes all those known laws?

Of course in your world Esdad there are no impossible physics...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by esdad71

Now where is that evidence of the demo folks?


Er the impossible physics that we have tried to explain to you over and over?

Sorry but there is no way on Earth that the planes compromised the structure bellow where they impacted.

The planes do not explain the lack of resistance from undamaged structure. They don't explain how the buildings managed to defy the laws of motion. The only thing that can explain that is that there was another energy source acting on the towers that was not considered in the investigation.

According to NIST the collapse was caused by the trusses sagging from heat and pulling in columns, the only connection to the plane is the fire. IF the planes had damaged the core it would still not be able to completely collapse itself through the path of most resistance (all the undamaged floors and columns).

Plane crashes and fires do not make the laws of psychics change.


We are not talking physics or washer models here...
. We are talking about how CD was not needed to bring down the towers. Stay on topic and stop trying to derail threads and get stars. Now, you say there is NO way on Earth but it happened. Because as you state, if the buildings defied the laws of motions they would be suspended in mid air because no matter how you try to contrive the law, gravity was not missing that day. How do i know? From watching people jump to their deaths.

A CD needs core columns destroyed...this happened on 9/11 as well as outer columns with the plane impact and ensuing fires. Therefore, CD was not needed as the OP states.


Well actually physics is pretty important in determining whether C.D. is the method. Relax. Don't fire off just to rebuttal man. Give pause to sonsider what your debating...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by northEASTukPIMPStheSYSTEM
 


In case you didn't notice: two of the buildings had aeroplanes slammed into the side of them


There is so much information in this thread that shows how tall buildings can not completely pancake themselves to the ground, and you think that comment has any relevance?

Try going to page one and reading a few posts and you'll realise, I hope, that the planes had nothing to do with the collapses.


?????
????

Planes had...... nothing.... to do with the collapses????

ANOK, are you serious, or just pulling our legs?



What do you think they did exactly that compromised the structure bellow where they impacted? Why did the planes not take out the floor trusses, and cause the truss failure collapse intermediately? The truss failure was supposed to have started at the impact points, yet we're supposed to believe the planes severed core columns at the impact points, but didn't take out the floors trusses? I don't think NIST even thought of that when they put together their whitewash.


Why should the floors below the impact floors have been compromised? What does that matter? The truss failures started at the impact area, and then as the top section began its descent, it caused each and every floor below it to fail. ANOK, do you even know or understand the design of the WTC, and how its design may be the cause of why it collapsed the way it did? And why must you be so adamant that the planes were suppose to compromise ALL the steel in the building in order for it to fail?

The reason why it collapsed the way it did is because of how the floors (and here I am talking about the truss supported floor section) were connected to the exterior columns. The force of the top section collapsing down was more than enough to dislodge and snap off the floor truss/exterior column connections. In fact there is plenty of evidence of the entire floor truss seat being clean shaved off the exterior column on many samples. Also, the force of the collapse pushed the exterior columns away like an arrow being split by another arrow. It snapped the connections and allowed for a more rapid collapse of the floors. And yes, once collapse started, the floors pancaked onto each other. Where the hell else were they going to go? Up?



I doubt much of the steel was even damaged inside the building. After going through one wall of steel columns there is not going to be enough energy left in the plane to damage even more massive core columns.


edit on 6/20/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Are you saying the plane impact did not do that much damage to the steel inside? are you saying over all the structure or the impacted area? Cause the damage areas looked pretty bad prior to collapse.

However, the building did incur some serious twisting and torquing after impact, and I'm pretty sure, that is not good for the structure itself either.




top topics



 
23
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join