Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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


then you will have no problem presenting evidence of that part of the overall investigation.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
If a skyscraper is a contained system, wouldn't vibrations at the structure's top be transferred throughout the entire system as the collapse was taking place and continued to on down, weakening the entire system until the ultimate impacting structure reached? Just because the lower structure 'looks' to be in tact it is far from being undamaged by the continued collapse. Any structural engineer can explain that to you. The skyscrapers were not two separate systems above and below the impact zones, they were a complete system absorbing the shock throughout, to say anything different is ludicrous.

Skyscraper columns are designed to support a given amount of STATIC vertical mass, when that system is breached by either moving or non-vertical mass the forces acting on the columns become precarious calculations to attempt to make. The damage began when 100+ton aircrafts applied horizontal forces to the building systems.

After 10 years people still don't understand what thermite is and what it was used for. A gravity burn incendiary cannot take out vertical columns, that thermite theory is ridiculous, LOL! The sheer volume of thermite required to burn through a given amount of steel far exceed the amount of steel it is to burn through. Watch 1800's demonstrations of how they burnt through railroad rails and see how much thermite it took and please note the gravity burn of the horizontal rails. The only other real use for thermite incendiaries was to disarm ordinances in the military, also note the mass required, let alone the apparatuses used.

As far as seeing red melts in the skyscrapers go, has anyone considered the thousands of miles of copper wiring and or thin plumbing pipes? Wasn't this noticed inside the building walls where such infrastructure would be? Has nobody ever thrown some copper wiring into a camp fire before? Besides metal that turns orange and red glows long before it melts, I know this by bending back an anti sway bar on a sports car I damaged, got it bright red to hammer straight again with a sledgehammer. It was a full inch diameter bar, bright red far from melting point, metal shop 101.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


It looks good on paper.

If down below the collapsing floors is weakened by the vibrations (which double-tubed reinforced steel was used to make the structure that much more rigid) wouldn't it suffice to say that the building should topple-over then?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
you are deluded. ever heard of physics. Look it up.

No offense but if you continue to think the weren't demolished. It just proves they could rely on how gullible people like you are.



And at least I show diagrams for my claims, you just hide behind the word "physics" lol What a load of delusional crap.


Yeah...physics is delusional...according to you



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


If you really think that building 7 went into free fall collapse due to localized fire then your entire argument is invalid.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 





A gravity burn incendiary cannot take out vertical columns


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that idea is as wrong as wrong can be:



Sorry for rehashing old news, but it seems that debunkers don't get the concept that you can't just say random things and claim you have debunked something.

Reality has a nasty way not bending to your crazy ideas.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by Version100
 


The demolition starts by taking out a percentage of the lower columns then starts from top to bottom demolishing the remaining ground floor columns during the last moments. This all happens with quick timing to allow free fall and the laws of physics to apply for a safe demolition. it's why you see the roof slightly cave in on building 7 for example. It makes it easy to implode on the spot. Common knowledge amongst demo experts.

You need to see the pictures of columns cut on an angle from ground zero the twin towers were demolished.

And also hear the janitors story.
edit on 18-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: Didn't check grammar :/


You missed the point.

The article stated that there was no evidence of the collapse starting at the ground level.

If TPTB had every floor rigged with remote detonators they could begin the collapse
anywhere they wanted, collapsing the core columns at ground level after the top was
collapsing.

The twin towers collapsed (disintegrated really) from the top down they did not collapse
from the base like building 7 did.

Watch this video from 1:30-1:44, you can see that the structure does not collapse from
the bottom, as a normal demolition does, but each floor explodes/disintegrates with force
pushing it outward.



I believe they had it rigged for radio detonation at any floor and just started popping the floors
underneath the impact area and continuing down.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
what about building seven ? www.youtube.com... Donald Rumsfeld forgot it even existed



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by ANOK
You are not taking into account the laws of motion that govern all objects in movement and what happens to them when subjected to other forces.


But the mass of the bottom of the tower doesn't have the force of gravity pushing it towards anything like the top does.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)


umm yes it does gravity pushes down on the bottom also making its mass slightly more dense unless I stepped into a alt universe this morning and for ever action their is a = and oppsite reaction so as the building top pushed down on the bottom you have the mass of the top + gravity fighting the mass of the tops force + gravityforce + the mass of the bottom force pluse gravityforce from the bottom its not rocket sicence
edit on 18-6-2011 by jonco6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jonco6
 


WOW folks,this one really gets you all going does'nt it?. well if anyone out there really believes 911 was'nt deliberate then can they advise me on exactly HOW two very large jets were able to fly UNHINDERED for many miles to there finally demise at the WTC and NOT be followed and stopped?[shot down?] by government fighter who should have been sent to intercept FOLLOWING RADAR that something [two?] large objects were in airspace and on a course they should'nt have been? this one is so simple why does evert body seem to miss it?!.
they got radar so high tech and good now it will show a sparrow over a city..



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Altho the title of your thread might just be right your theory is not sound you should have gone with the planes mass wrecking in to the building weakining the core due to vibration or something like that but with out a real investigation wich is impossable now (talk about the gov cutting of their own foot if their was nothing to hide and i hope their wasnt but rushing off the aftermath only raises ?'s) their is no way to prove any of it and the videos dont help the offical story and building 7 is well like the virgin marry she suddenly and like magic got pregers and building suddenly almost like magic fell down with very little damage just fires or so it would seem that is if you think that their where no explosives. I just wish that they did not get rid the wreakage so fast or had a team of independant scientests study it seeing as how it was a world first a steel building falling do to fireb7 and plane + fire 1,2 that coupled with the new studies by ind scie its hard to deny that something fishy went on maybe the bad guys snuck in and planted explosives too i mean hell if you belive they took a plane over with a bunch of americans with atitude on it with only a boxcutter than i guess they could have rigged it to explode just incase the planes did not come.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Just explain one thing OP, you're theory rests on the weight of the upper floors collapsing the floors below. How do suspect the floors below offer no resistance to the weight above. If you're theory were correct, the building would have taken longer to collapse.

Also, you make the common mistake of failing to explain Building 7, as most people do out of sheer convenience.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by canuck7
 


sorry i think you may have miss under stood me i am sure something was totally fishy and so many have claimed their where explosives their going off i was not their so i would half to belive them that and you can hear them in the back ground of some of the videos that and you are right their is no way they could have flone that far and not get taken down that and i dont two guys on a plane with a box cutter is really going to subdue 8 americans alone how ever many where on the plane
edit on 18-6-2011 by jonco6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Version100

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by Version100
 


The demolition starts by taking out a percentage of the lower columns then starts from top to bottom demolishing the remaining ground floor columns during the last moments. This all happens with quick timing to allow free fall and the laws of physics to apply for a safe demolition. it's why you see the roof slightly cave in on building 7 for example. It makes it easy to implode on the spot. Common knowledge amongst demo experts.

You need to see the pictures of columns cut on an angle from ground zero the twin towers were demolished.

And also hear the janitors story.
edit on 18-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: Didn't check grammar :/


You missed the point.

The article stated that there was no evidence of the collapse starting at the ground level.

If TPTB had every floor rigged with remote detonators they could begin the collapse
anywhere they wanted, collapsing the core columns at ground level after the top was
collapsing.

The twin towers collapsed (disintegrated really) from the top down they did not collapse
from the base like building 7 did.

Watch this video from 1:30-1:44, you can see that the structure does not collapse from
the bottom, as a normal demolition does, but each floor explodes/disintegrates with force
pushing it outward.



I believe they had it rigged for radio detonation at any floor and just started popping the floors
underneath the impact area and continuing down.




note that I said "then starts from top to bottom" most demolition with tall structures they blow a percentage of ground level support beams when it starts. sorry if you misunderstood.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


lol funniest thread so far and i have read alot!!!! Go learn something, anything about physical laws and then come back and say sorry for wasting my time.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

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)


Can you show an example besides the towers and building 7 of a steel and concrete skyscraper that collapsed due to burning. These buildings were designed to survive impacts with planes even bigger than the ones that hit them in no way did these planes bring these buildings down by themselves.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Uh, now hear this OP, one of the architects of the two WTC buildings did say that they design them so that they could survive fire; even explosions of a certain degree. I heard this on the Discovery Channel a long time ago.

Surely the architects would not have learned anything from previous building accidents and put all what they learned on the WTC buildings?

For the 9/11 attacks to have seemed real then at least big chunks of the buildings should have come crashing down and not the whole thing. It felt weird to me when I saw the incident on TV and the first thought that came to my head was "Controlled Demolition right there". Surely the reinforced steel frame should have held, only thermite could have done such a thing.


my two cents,

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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Actually a particle beam was shot from orbit that disolved the inner core, heehee



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


You've still failed to Address the Loss of Momentum.



It also explains how a pancake collapse cannot happen. Every-time the weight of the above floors hits floor with undamaged columns the mass above loses momentum because it is met with much more resistance from the bottom floors.



Lol yea because the support structures were painted with thermite weeks before 9/11

This is incorrect because the weight of the above floors WERE in fact hitting damaged columns. You think the fire only damaged the part of the building that was impacted by the plane? There were fires weakening that steel all over the place.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This is why it was demolished steel this thick doesn't break like this it never will no matter how you try look out how even that it is steel if it tears will not tear evenly let alone on the perfect angle like this is no matter what you think.



911truthaustralia.com...





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join