Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Here's a vid proving that the towers did NOT fall at free fall speed, also proving that the core was still somewhat in tact after the collapse of the South Tower. If explosives were used then there would be no core left, so explosives being used to bring the towers down is virtually impossible.


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




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


There is a concerted effort going on to build and analyze fire and how it affects structures still. This particular lab is still being contructed at NIST for precisely that purpose (and others). First of it's kind. Funded by taxpayer money:

www.nist.gov...

Perhaps this will help identify and answer some questions on how fire and stress plays a role in multi story buildings.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by gconran
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


There is a concerted effort going on to build and analyze fire and how it affects structures still. This particular lab is still being contructed at NIST for precisely that purpose (and others). First of it's kind. Funded by taxpayer money:

www.nist.gov...

Perhaps this will help identify and answer some questions on how fire and stress plays a role in multi story buildings.



Thanks man. And because there was no evidence of explosives being used that day if you really want to get to the bottom of 911, then we have to learn more about how fire effects steel. Trying to prove theories with no proof is counter productive to science when countless evidence shows that the fires weakened the steel (which was already in bad shape from the impact knocking off the fire proofing).



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Don't forget, Mayor Giuliani was about as corrupt a crook as they come. Right before the towers went down he had one of the worst approval ratings in NYC history. There was a big expose about his corruption in The Voice that summer - about how he put his "command bunker" in #7, even though the WTC was a prime target, just because one of his contributors owned it and would get rent. Also about how he built a HUGE illegal diesel tank in the sub-basement of #7 to power his "command bunker". The tank not only undermined the structure, but had all kinds of problems.
Oh, and one other thing. Another thing that came out that summer was that he switched all the police and fire department radios to digital, giving the contract to another one of his contributors - and they WERE"NT WORKING PROPERLY. I specifically remember reading that in either the Village Voice or the NY Press. He was under investigation for that as well... so when, on September 11th, the radios weren't working properly, it was no big surprise.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Diogenesis because: spelling



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by greenCo

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).


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).


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)


There is a little thing in physics called "resistance" , and believe me... there is no resistance at all in the way this buildings are collapsing. They simply blow out all the structural resistance of the buidings.


Of course there is resistance, the debri of the columns is coming down way faster than the building is in all the videos, plus teh building came down in at least 14 seconds, no resistance woudl have made the building fall at 8 seconds. Nice try though


Thank you
. I think the point is that you and most of the people have the feeling that all the gov story is true, and like me, some have the feeling that isn´t the true. Anyway, you have ellaborated a good explanation.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
And since I've noticed that I'v been answering the same questions 232908 times , I'll post this one more time for people who missed it. The towers didn't fall ANYWHERE near close to free fall speed, the the core is still left standing in the South Tower , backing up a pancake collapse (explosives would have taken the core completely out)

Here is the video again:


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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Building 7 IS an important part of the puzzle.

You need to ask yourself a few simple questions about that building.

1) It didn't seem that badly damaged at all

2) The fire crew clearing everybody away saying that the building was being brought down soon, not to mention all of the explosions heard in there.

3) Most importantly the news report about building 7 has collapsed, she then went on to read a lengthy script explaining the collapse etc in detail, BUT building 7 was still clearly visible as fine behind her shoulder.

4) Finally it was emphasised on the tv in an interview with the guy who said he made the decision to have the building PULLED. That was a highly sensitive building with some very important stuff inside, including the accounts of all of the missing billions of dollars. Also it would have taken days, if not weeks to rig the building to fall.

How can we believe any of the other stupid lies, when they blatantly lie about this simpler building.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qwenn
Building 7 IS an important part of the puzzle.

You need to ask yourself a few simple questions about that building.

1) It didn't seem that badly damaged at all

2) The fire crew clearing everybody away saying that the building was being brought down soon, not to mention all of the explosions heard in there.

3) Most importantly the news report about building 7 has collapsed, she then went on to read a lengthy script explaining the collapse etc in detail, BUT building 7 was still clearly visible as fine behind her shoulder.

4) Finally it was emphasised on the tv in an interview with the guy who said he made the decision to have the building PULLED. That was a highly sensitive building with some very important stuff inside, including the accounts of all of the missing billions of dollars. Also it would have taken days, if not weeks to rig the building to fall.

How can we believe any of the other stupid lies, when they blatantly lie about this simpler building.




1) Not badly damaged? Come on dude....



2) They all knew the building was going to come down due to the damage, and just because you hear explosions doesn't mean a bomb did it. That's like saying if you hear a fart noise then it must be a whoopie cushion (outside tool), maybe I just farted? lol

3) Like I said, they all knew the building was going to fall due to damage, the reporter obviously just reported it early. You think the mastermind elite behind the most elaborate/intense conspiracy ever constructed would reveal the conspiracy to a #ing reporter? Get real.

4) I've mentioned that Larry Silverstein quote countless times and I'm not doing it again.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I don't know about building 7, its been a LONG time since I've reviewed this, but its already been proven that thermite couldn't do the job. first its explosives, then its thermite. even with 75 Ibs of thermite placed next to a column, all it did was blacken it. and there was no way to put enough of the "invisible gel thermite" on there either.

most demolitions now rely on basically a metal blade fixed explosives to shear through support columns.

but like i've stated before, your talking about thousands and thousands of people ranging from civilians, airport personnel, etc to be involved with this.

and also your dealing with human nature in regards to garnishing attention



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kingbreaker
I don't know about building 7, its been a LONG time since I've reviewed this, but its already been proven that thermite couldn't do the job. first its explosives, then its thermite. even with 75 Ibs of thermite placed next to a column, all it did was blacken it. and there was no way to put enough of the "invisible gel thermite" on there either.

most demolitions now rely on basically a metal blade fixed explosives to shear through support columns.

but like i've stated before, your talking about thousands and thousands of people ranging from civilians, airport personnel, etc to be involved with this.

and also your dealing with human nature in regards to garnishing attention



Agreed my friend. One additional question I have for believers is if there were explosives used then how come the South Tower's core still stood intact after the collapse? Wouldn't the explosions have knocked out the main parts of the core to bring it down? Everything points to progressive/pancake collapse.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Total Fail. Nice try OP.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tbonethedstroyer
Total Fail. Nice try OP.


That's all you got? Looks like I win



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
At first people just assumed the planes knocked the towers down, when that was not possible to believe anymore, they blamed it on jet fuel, but since jet fuel doesn't melt steel, they switched to the pancake theory, when that didn't make sense because of the free fall acceleration, they switched to office fires caused the towers to collapse. All the while ignoring the evidence of controlled demolition (secondary explosives, nano thermite, molten steel, etc).



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 
I am not going to "Bash" you but I am also not going to spend my morning explaining why your conclusions don't hold water. Instead, I will simply point out that all 3 building contained a steel skeletal infra-structure which would be sticking into the air were they not cut into pieces, as is done in all controlled demolitions. I could say this better and in more specific terms but your post simply doesn't warrant more.

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



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Basically it looks like your theory is saying that "All this weight" is what caused the tower to collapse, but towers are build to hold up All that weight" so if anything the top would fall off but not the bottom. At a certain point it wouldn't make sense for "all this weight" to knock the tower down when the tower is designed to hold up all that weight. You'd have to believe that every steel girdle buckled under the pressure of "all this weight" and yet you'd have to believe this did not happen for about an hour after the plane impacted (and seven hours for WTC 7).



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Basically it looks like your theory is saying that "All this weight" is what caused the tower to collapse, but towers are build to hold up All that weight" so if anything the top would fall off but not the bottom. At a certain point it wouldn't make sense for "all this weight" to knock the tower down when the tower is designed to hold up all that weight. You'd have to believe that every steel girdle buckled under the pressure of "all this weight" and yet you'd have to believe this did not happen for about an hour after the plane impacted (and seven hours for WTC 7).



You're are missing the point of a progressive collapse, it wasn't like it was JUST the weight of the floors above the impacted zone that caused the collapse. The floors under the impacted zone were severely damaged due to fire there for when the above floors came crashing down on them, the weakened floors below became PART of the over all mass crashing down on the building, then those floors below weakened due to the above mass crashing down on it and so on and so forth.

Answer this, if the South Tower was brought down by explosives then how come the core still remained intact after the collapse, wouldn't have the explosives knocked out the main points of detonation? The core remains intact just like how the progressive collapse theory says it would after the floors collapsed and turned to rubble and dust.




That picture was taken right after the collapse of the South Tower.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


For a long time I thought the towers were brought down using somekind of explosive or cutting charge, but I have doubts now. I believe something unknown to the public was used. Check out Dr. Judy Wood's work. She has compliled some very interesting data. (www.drjudywood.com...) Her theory, which I believe now, is that some type of beam in conjunction with a chemical was used to break up the molecular sturcture of the steel which turn it to dust. Here is the video (www.youtube.com...) showing the column turning to dust.

She gives good evidence on why cutting charges weren't used to bring the entire building down. If that were the case there would be at least 20 stories of debris and there was only about 4. For one, there are no photos of molten metal at ground zero. Plus hydrolic equipment could not be used if there was molten metal, the lines would break. She shows that many of the photos used to "show" hot spots were altered from the originals which she obtained from NIST, FEMA and so on. She is qualified, holding a BS in Civil Engineering, and Structural Engineering, MS Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), and PhD in Materials Engineering Science.

She gets a lot of criticism from the 9/11 truth movment, especially those who support thermite use. To me that shows she is on to something. I think the establishment has allowed the thermite theories to go on because they know it is not true.
edit on 18-6-2011 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Qwenn
 


Firefighters weren't saying anything about WTC 7 " being brought down soon ". This is what they were saying :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 



Take it for what it's worth.....or take a course in elementary Physics...that will only tell you the exact same thing as I had condensed into a few paragraphs ...

It's Your choice to Deny Ignorance or not.

Physics are a proven science and explain the world around us.

It's called the Truth.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The twin towers can not fall by their own weight period. The initial engineering has been completely done to prevent such thing from happening. And also, never before any high rise bulding has collaped by fire. I try not to post anymore in this forum. This forum so called ATS has been infiltrated by the paid disinfo agents. Some valid and interesting threads are mysteriously disappearing. The ATS is not worth a visit allowing this kind of nonsense while deleting many interesting, alarming and informative threads.

The end of ATS is near folks.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join