Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 

I agree with you that name calling is unnecessary. I do have a problem with the official story so let me explain what that problem is.

In the pancake collapse theory there is mass accelerating down onto the floors below. This energy (accelerating mass) is said to have caused the floors below to collapse one at a time. The question remains where, then, are the pancaked floors? There should be a pile of floors on the ground after all is done but we see none. There is a pile of twisted steel but where is all the concrete?

The energy that was said to have caused this collapse sequence to continue, pulverized the concrete floors at the same time yet we see this pulverized concrete being expelled out and away from the building. How can this concrete help to accumulate energy if it is expelled away from the building? This shows a problem with the conservation of energy. We have mass accelerating (energy) impacting and crushing the floors below, pulverizing the concrete and falling out and away from the building all at the same time. This energy therefore cannot be at two places at once. This official explanation is in violation of the conservation of energy and because of this proves it is false.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


If it was not an implosion demolition, then how did all four outer walls end up on top of the collapsed building?


Well, the progressive collapse of each floor being hit (with each floor breaking into 293273287 pieces mind you) would obviously cause them to reach the ground faster than the tops of walls would, and since the middle of the roof started to fall first in all the videos, that would explain why the four outer walls ended up on top.




....requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

A little bit of research into the physics involved, and how implosion demolition works, and you can't fail to see the obvious.


"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

www.asce.org...

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I shouldn't have too. Its make me so happy to see you have no idea. I feel sorry for you.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


I shouldn't have too. Its make me so happy to see you have no idea. I feel sorry for you.



I feel sorry for you, you believe in things that most credible scientists scoff at, have fun with that.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: Typo



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Building 7 wasn't hit by planes, Building 7 dropped like a perfect demolition and it was not due to "small fires" or any fires. Larry Silverstein already gave it away by accident with the "Pull It" comment. Building 7 was a demolition. And if Building 7 was a demolition, the official story is a lie, and they were likely ALL demolitions. This is not hard to understand. The only reason people don't accept this very basic and obvious conclusion is because they don't want to accept the horrible implications and truth about our government.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
You want physics! There wasn't enough weight in the above sections of the collapsed buildings to destroy the rest of the building to the ground. OMG is it that so hard to understand. I could line up 30 buildings exactly the same as the Twin Towers and let you try and do the same results as you claim with 29 of them. You can run planes into them. Light them on fire with jet fuel. Whatever you want to do.

The last one I would rig to blow as a controlled demolition and then you would maybe realize. Your government did let you down that day and that the twins towers came down in a controlled fashion.

A plane crash scenario isn't controlled, the building would have gave way to the side and fallen. And how did the steel on the opposite sides of the impact zone melt at the exact same time to allow perfect free fall collapse. Open your eyes.

I'm starting to think you're a government disinformation agent. You just post and reply to stuff that contradicts physics, science and fact.

It's people like you that make America look like a joke.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99
Building 7 wasn't hit by planes, Building 7 dropped like a perfect demolition and it was not due to "small fires" or any fires. Larry Silverstein already gave it away by accident with the "Pull It" comment. Building 7 was a demolition. And if Building 7 was a demolition, the official story is a lie, and they were likely ALL demolitions. This is not hard to understand. The only reason people don't accept this very basic and obvious conclusion is because they don't want to accept the horrible implications and truth about our government.


Oh I understand it , I just don't believe it because the evidence holds no weight. The government has done some messed up things to people, so I don't think I'm fearful of any horrible implications I'm just looking for what's most likely. I already mentioned how the "pull" comment was taken out of context, and how if there was a conspiracy he wouldn't have said anything on camera in the first place. Plus the fires in building 7 were raging and not small at all as you can see with this picture:



And the large amounts of smoke do not mean that the fire is oxygen depraved, all it means is that the fires were trapped inside the building (fires spread fast) and the smoke had nowhere else to go but outward. Plus when the heat from a fire is trapped inside is heats up way quicker than expected which supports the claim of weakened steel even more.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
It's public knowledge building 7 was demolished. Larry and Rudy both claimed to have given the ok to demolish it and even the responders on the ground knew it was being "pulled" or that it was to be demolished. There is video of that.

Just concentrate on the fact that the twin towers came down exactly the same, by controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
You want physics! There wasn't enough weight in the above sections of the collapsed buildings to destroy the rest of the building to the ground. OMG is it that so hard to understand



Nobody said it was ONLY the weight from the upper part causing it too collapse, you forget about how when that weight hits the floors below the impact zone (which are severely weakened by this point due to fire), those become part of the weight hence the term PROGRESSIVE collapse, because it's not ONLY the initial weight. All you need is the weight of ONE floor to come crashing down on the other to cause a progressive collapse. Is it that hard to understand?!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
It's public knowledge building 7 was demolished. Larry and Rudy both claimed to have given the ok to demolish it and even the responders on the ground knew it was being "pulled" or that it was to be demolished. There is video of that.

Just concentrate on the fact that the twin towers came down exactly the same, by controlled demolition.



Omg is somebody referencing the Larry Silverstein quote again? How many times do I have to go in circles with the same points?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


All you need is the weight of ONE floor to come crashing down on the other to cause a progressive collapse.
So when this weight of the above floors gets expelled outward and away from the collapsing building what then causes the accumulation of energy that then cause the collapse to progress?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


All you need is the weight of ONE floor to come crashing down on the other to cause a progressive collapse.
So when this weight of the above floors gets expelled outward and away from the collapsing building what then causes the accumulation of energy that then cause the collapse to progress?


If we are talking about the twin towers then the weight of the above floors did not get expelled outwards at all, the dust and debris cloud being pushed out is due to some of the destruction of the lower floors below the impact zone, which can clearly be seen in this video:




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


There was nothing progressive about it. Planes dont bring down buildings. Especially ones built to withstand it. you cant handle the fact that I am right. You came here with a amateurish drawn theory, that is so against what 1000's of engineers and architects know happened that day. That it's hilarious.

It's ok disinformation agent. I don't need you to tell me what happened that day. I know. I'm telling you.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
"If we are talking about the twin towers then the weight of the above floors did not get expelled outwards at all, the dust and debris cloud being pushed out is due to some of the destruction of the lower floors below the impact zone, which can clearly be seen in this video"

Due to some destruction huh? They were demolished floor by floor in a controlled fashion. I can't help but show you that you just admired that the floors had to be non existent? So did some destruction make each floor poof and disappear. yeah ok buddy. ofcourse magic.



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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 

Now I fail to see your point. There was a tremendous amount of mass expelled out and away from the collpasing buildings as is evident from the many videos taken that day and the images of the sounding area of New York city of the aftermath. I don't understand how you can dispute this.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
To clear up the Larry Silverstein thing, he meant to "pull" the firefighters out, and said "it" meant the contingent of firefighters. Many argue that were was no firefighting that took place at WTC 7 which is true:

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]


HOWEVER, these are taken out of context because once the firefighters got in they realized they could not isolate the pockets fire the, the contingent had to be pulled. So yes, there was no actual fire fighting done but the fire fighters did enter the building and make an attempt at it for a quite a while.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBelieverOh I understand it , I just don't believe it because the evidence holds no weight. The government has done some messed up things to people, so I don't think I'm fearful of any horrible implications I'm just looking for what's most likely. I already mentioned how the "pull" comment was taken out of context, and how if there was a conspiracy he wouldn't have said anything on camera in the first place. Plus the fires in building 7 were raging and not small at all as you can see with this picture:



Show me one other instance in human history where a steel frame building collapsed like these 3 buildings, all at once, due to fire. Just 1 in all of human history, all you need to show me. Good luck with that.

Never before, then 3 in the same day. People swallow it hook line and sinker. Starting to think humans maybe need to be eradicated just like they plan to do. The only sad part is that worthy people like me will be eradicated with the rest of you.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 

Now I fail to see your point. There was a tremendous amount of mass expelled out and away from the collpasing buildings as is evident from the many videos taken that day and the images of the sounding area of New York city of the aftermath


I never disputed this, can you read ok? I only disputed that the mass that was expelled came mostly from the above floors crashing down, when most videos clearly show that the mass expelled came mostly from objects from the floors below being crushed progressively.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
You just said that some destruction? of the lowers floors caused the building to collapse as you put it progressively.

What are you dumb, or was it like I replied some kind of magic?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by SkepticAndBelieverOh I understand it , I just don't believe it because the evidence holds no weight. The government has done some messed up things to people, so I don't think I'm fearful of any horrible implications I'm just looking for what's most likely. I already mentioned how the "pull" comment was taken out of context, and how if there was a conspiracy he wouldn't have said anything on camera in the first place. Plus the fires in building 7 were raging and not small at all as you can see with this picture:



Show me one other instance in human history where a steel frame building collapsed like these 3 buildings, all at once, due to fire. Just 1 in all of human history, all you need to show me. Good luck with that.



Show me ONCE just ONCE in the history of humanity where a steel framed building like the WTC was hit at 500mph by a huge airliner with the purpose of knocking it down. You're comparing apples and oranges, good luck with that blind logic.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join