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: 42
23
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok ,110 floors, the concrete was on average 4-5 inches thick so lets do some maths
say an average of 4.5 inches so

110 x 4.5 = 495 inches that's if no damage and neatly stacked on top of each other or around 41.25 feet.

That's if the concrete was intact after falling from hundreds of feet, no way that would happen.

Fare amount of concrete on view here.

[img]www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/layers.jpg[/image]

I think you should talk to an independant structural engineer I have no doubt your understanding of what happened would give him a

edit on 28-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   


Fixed the picture link for ya!

edit on 6/28/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
You want pics?

















Yeah look at that stack of floors...


Why didn't this building collapse into its footprint like 7? (rhetorical, not really interested in your excuse)











600 ft., away from the towers...





Where did the energy come from to do that?

There was no pancake collapse, even NIST admitted that one. Do you even understand what it is you're arguing in support of? Anything post collapse initiation is just you making things up, and ignoring known laws of physics in order to maintain this belief in the impossible. Why do you even think anyone takes any of you seriously any more?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Where did the energy come from to do that?

There was no pancake collapse, even NIST admitted that one. Do you even understand what it is you're arguing in support of? Anything post collapse initiation is just you making things up, and ignoring known laws of physics in order to maintain this belief in the impossible. Why do you even think anyone takes any of you seriously any more?


ANOK, check your reading comprehension skills, then get back to us when you do.You dont even know what NIST said, and here you are acting like an authority that knows all. I told this to you numerous times already, yet you ignore it every time, and continue with your erroneous comments. I cannot take anything you say seriously when you cannot even read a quote correctly and comprehend what it states.

NIST said that pancake collapse did NOT start the collapse. The failure of the exterior columns that were bending in caused it. The floors pancaked LATER after initiation. Can you get this into your skull? How many times do I have to repeat this to you before it seeps in? I've seen ignorance before, but not to this level of absurdity!

Let me refresh your woefully short memory:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."


wtc.nist.gov...

Once again, NIST states that the floors did not progressively fail to cause collapse via pancaking. THAT is what they are saying. What started the collapse. Afterward, its quite obvious what happened to the floors. They collapsed one on top of the other. Pancaked. Stacked. Whatever you wish to call it when something falls onto something. Also I enjoy your photos. I see how the exterior columns are laid out as if they were peeled away. The floors? Somewhere down in the middle of where the WTC stood.

Do you know what the term "Initiator" means??

As for WTC 5,6 What kind of a structural design were they? How tall again? Oh yeah, what happened to rest of the buildings cause I See huge chunks missing, squashed flat. Boy oh boy ANOK, you dont even know what is going on here do you?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
No witnesses said they thought the explosions were explosives thats's just your opinion, some even came forward saying they were upset that conspiracy theorists would twist their words to fit their claim... but you present facts? Nice try lol


You should visit youtube and see the video that was taken that day. Police and Fireman talked about the explosions they heard. And it wasn't just one of them it was a bunch of them. They are all now stepping forward. Not made up. The truth is out there. The video is out there. Educate yourself. Just the fact that you stated no one said they hear explosions let me know you have not done your homework. As I have.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Look it up.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Where did the energy come from to do that?


Potential energy in the building. Where you you think the energy came from? (and if you say explosives you will get a whole list of follow up questions)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


HI,WHY DOES SO MANY POEPLE SAY THER PLANES WERE TRAVELLING AT 500MPH WHEN THEY HIT THE TOWERS?!!!!!!!.THOSE PLANES TOP SPEED AT 30.000FT IS ONLY AROUND 560MPH!.AND THEY CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THE AIR IS A LOT THINNER UP THERE!. THOSE PLANES THAT HIT THE WTC DID'T LOOK THAT FAR OFF STALLING SPEED!,BECAUSE THEY WERE DELIBERATELY GOING AS SLOW AS POSSIBLE SO AS NOT TO MISS THE "TARGET"!. I GUESS THEY WERE DOING AROUND 200-250MPH TOPS! SO STOP EXAGGERATING PEOPLE!?. PETER



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by canuck7
reply to post by buster2010
 


HI,WHY DOES SO MANY POEPLE SAY THER PLANES WERE TRAVELLING AT 500MPH WHEN THEY HIT THE TOWERS?!!!!!!!.THOSE PLANES TOP SPEED AT 30.000FT IS ONLY AROUND 560MPH!.AND THEY CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THE AIR IS A LOT THINNER UP THERE!. THOSE PLANES THAT HIT THE WTC DID'T LOOK THAT FAR OFF STALLING SPEED!,BECAUSE THEY WERE DELIBERATELY GOING AS SLOW AS POSSIBLE SO AS NOT TO MISS THE "TARGET"!. I GUESS THEY WERE DOING AROUND 200-250MPH TOPS! SO STOP EXAGGERATING PEOPLE!?. PETER


Have you ever watched one of the videos that shows the hits and listen to the planes...they are at full throttle. They did not slow down to miss the target. That would make no sense. They need to build more momentum to slam into the towers as fast as possible.

Are you seriously going to tell me this plane was slowing down and cruising...

The first is one of two known videos of the first plane hitting...listen to the engines...You should watch the Naudet film...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Stop guessing and do a little research.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


He will not and never has answered this question. He will simply say you do not understand physics and direct you to psikey's 5th grade project.

The problem is not poor physics but poor application of the laws. They must all be applied.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing, but I made up a few pictures depicting why I think the WTC buildings collapsed (basically leaning to towards the "official" story as it's put lol).



I conducted my own test using this video:

www.youtube.com...

The collapse starts at 3 seconds into the video, and the building stops becoming visible at around 12 or 13 seconds into the video (9 seconds) , however just like stated above, there are MANY floors below which are unaccounted for in the fall, which brings my collapse time to around 14 seconds (14-18 seconds including all the debris that fell).




Investigative teams were specifically looking for traces of explosives after the attacks as well because one of the calls from a passenger indicated there may have been a bomb on the plane (even though the passenger stated he thought it was fake), and to no surprise there was no evidence of the sort.


In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


Personally, nowadays, I can't help but agree with you. It may be part of the 'official story', but after finally researching both sides with an unbiased eye, I can say that I now lean towards the 'no-demolition' theory.
However, though, that doesn't necessarily prove all the other parts of the official story, of course. Like, for example, how did the 9/11 hijackers get pilots' licenses when they pretty much all failed their tests? Did they perhaps receive help from some shady benefactor?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Who in there right mind would design a building as tall as that, that when one beam or floor fails then EVERY floor and all the people in the building will turn to dust in under 10 seconds???????






posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TrentReznor
 


The design for the WTC complex was envisioned in the 40's. It was designed for maximum office space so it did not use redundant inner columns as most buildings have encased in concrete usually do and was very unique. It was also redesigned a few times to make sure that it hit a specific amount of square footage that would be available.

If you take the time to look at Silverstien, if not for him, much of the downtown WTC complex would have folded. It was after the crash of wall street that open the property to bidding. Now, why would someone lease something, not own, only to destroy it? It may have been insured for 40-50 billion but he was award 4.7 billion to rebuild.

Silverstein stated in a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds', "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

That is the famous quote that most people refer to about how the tower were wired. Now, if he took control of the towers in July of 2001, how did he have the time to wire them to collect since it would cost so much to take care of the asbestos, which usually enters the conversation also.

I mean, this guy still pays rent on buildings that are no longer there. Yeah, check it out. He pays over 100 million annually with nothing in return.

He had no reason, because he just got it. The government has no reason, since they can go to war for no reason and stay there. Ask Bush OR Obama.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by canuck7
 


Peter, please turn off your caps.
what makes you think they were not hauling ass when they struck the towers?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by AverageJoe1
 


Actually, the pilots were Instrument rated which means they had a qualification that all commercial pilots must obtain to fly. This means they were rated not just visually but with instruments. If you would like to know more read the 9/11 Commission report. Full of all sorts of good tidbits..



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Do any of you know how many planes it would take to bring down one of the twin towers? If I was a billionaire I would build exact to spec buidings one next to the other.

I have thought about this alot. I believe it's would take hundreds of planes to bring down a tower.

Jet fuel burns out leaving floor fires. Planes frame would disintegrate upon impact as it does. a simple fire wouldnt melt the steel. So I would have to use another plane. Even in the same impact zone. Plane would again disintegrate upon impact and burn out the floor leaving the steel intact. Possible aluminium facing would show tears where windows would also be. Some windows would blow out from fire. Yet burning everything around it except for steel and concrete. Fire can't burn concrete? So now up to my third plane. I might try exactly on the other side. Again: aluminum shredding, steel destroys planes intergrity. Jet fuel burns out and burns floor fires, burning everything except for steel and concrete. damn these buildings are strong.
I have used three planes over a period of a few hours.

Why haven't my buildings come down like that day. Let's try another plane. Right below the initial impact zone.

Do you see what I am trying to get at. you could have used patriot missiles on that building and it still wouldnt fall all the way to the bottom in 10 seconds.

Pancakes?? Yes when you blow out upright beams in an attempt to implode the buidling on itself technically you are trying to pancake it. You know this right?. When are you deluded people going to open your eyes.

I have said this many of times. You could hit those buildings with 100s of planes. Any type too. and the buildings still wouldnt fall like that. Not in an hour of being hit. Like really. Wake up.

The official story is BS the quicker you see it, the better.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Where did the energy come from to do that?


Potential energy in the building. Where you you think the energy came from? (and if you say explosives you will get a whole list of follow up questions)


ROFLMAO

Potential Energy is weight times height.

If you don't know the amount of steel on every level of the building and the amount of concrete on every level of the building then how can you compute the Potential Energy of the building?

You want to make claims about what physics can do but then you don't want the data to do the physics.

Just BELIEVE in the 9/11 RELIGION and you don't need data.

ROFLMAO

We don't even have the layout of the horizontal beams in the core after TEN YEARS. How much thicker did they get going down the buildings. It should have at least been noticed in SIX MONTHS that we didn't have the data to solve the problem.

The distribution of mass changes the potential energy.

forums.randi.org...

That can be explained to grade school kids.

And then there is the little matter of the speed of the collapse involving the conservation of momentum.

www.rationalskepticism.org...

psik
edit on 2-7-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


100's of planes. Man, put down the crack pipe and come on back to reality...


The fact that anyone would post that and that anyone would star it shows that there is too much ignorance to handle.

Name one building that is designed to withstand 100 planes hitting it?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Where did the energy come from to do that?


Potential energy in the building. Where you you think the energy came from? (and if you say explosives you will get a whole list of follow up questions)


There was not enough potential energy available to do that.

Do you know what potential energy is? It's the energy that an object has the potential of releasing due to its position. For example a stretched rubber band has potential energy because it if it is let go it will return to its un-stretched state. The top floors of the towers would only have the potential energy of the force produced by it dropping from gravity. You can NOT ignore the laws of motion as you keep doing. As soon as the top section dropped its energy changed to Ke, as soon as the top impacted the bottom section that Ke is lost to deformation, sound, heat, ejection of debris etc. For your hypothesis to work Ke wold have had to increase to overcome resistance which is impossible. For 15 floors to crush 95 floors you would need more than 100% of the falling mass, more Ke than 15 floors could produce.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There was not enough potential energy available to do that.


There was. About 600GJ.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
There was not enough potential energy available to do that.


There was. About 600GJ.


So why don't you tell us how much steel and how much concrete was at each level of the building so we can compute that portion of it?

Or is this just another made up number?

Gregory Urich says >4 E+11 J

911research.wtc7.net...

He says 400,000,000,000 and you say 600,000,000,000.

I say Urich has too much mass too high in the building because he is using 19 tons for the heaviest wall panel and a 1970 magazine says it was 22 tons. So that would make Urich's P.E. estimate high and yours is even higher.

So it looks like we don't have accurate data after TEN YEARS.

So what is your source for your made up number?

Here is one from a week after 9/11:

www.freerepublic.com...

So how accurate was his data on the building?

psik
edit on 2-7-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)







 
23
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join