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.

 

An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Did planes hit the towers Yes
Did they cause damage Yes
Could the fuel explosion cause damage Yes
Could the fire cause problems Yes
Did all of the above cause the towers to collapse Yes!!!

Based on my experience and discussions with Senior structural engineers.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by plube
 


Did planes hit the towers Yes
Did they cause damage Yes
Could the fuel explosion cause damage Yes
Could the fire cause problems Yes
Did all of the above cause the towers to collapse Yes!!!

Based on my experience and discussions with Senior structural engineers.



Your questions are a bit vague and novice like. I think I can do it a bit more detailed.


Did the planes hit the towers: Y

Did they cause damages: Y

Is it possible they caused structural damage: Y

Is the possible structural damage was only in the impact area: Y

Could the fire cause problems: Y
Could the fires cause structural damage: Y

Could the impact and fire cause structural damage to the rest of the building below the impacted area: NO



What experiences do you have with construction: It seems Very Little

Have you ever had the pleasure to witness a tower/skyscraper being built from its footprint: No


And can you please be more elaborate with your discussions with senior structural engineers? Or is it these discussions were more you surfing the internet.


You know nothing about construction .


You still haven't answered my main question.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


see see,,,there in lays the crutch......i do not have the need to discuss it with senior structural engineers....as i can draw my own conclusions.......put two and two together......

cheers....also i too discuss it with my fellow Engineers....so you choose one side of the fence through knowledge and understanding....where as i chose a different side of the fence along with many of my fellow engineers.

cheers for the interesting talks....and when you show your own workings i would be honored to puruse through your data.
as all you have to do is go and puruse mine.
edit on 033131p://f57Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Looking at your posts English is not your first language so I will give you a little slack but did anyone who believes the OS claim that the structure below the impact point was damaged?

So have you worked out what kind of impact force would be generated when the south tower collapse started or the north tower collapse?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


see see,,,there in lays the crutch......i do not have the need to discuss it with senior structural engineers....as i can draw my own conclusions.......put two and two together......

cheers....also i too discuss it with my fellow Engineers....so you choose one side of the fence through knowledge and understanding....where as i chose a different side of the fence along with many of my fellow engineers.

cheers for the interesting talks....and when you show your own workings i would be honored to puruse through your data.
as all you have to do is go and puruse mine.
edit on 033131p://f57Monday by plube because: (no reason given)


I didn't need to discuss it either it happens every so often so you have a theory give us a link and I will post mine.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dilly1
 


No-one says the aircraft pulverised the building tho - so your request to show how it happened is another case of begging the question - inventing a question about something that did not happen in the first place, and then claiming "victory" when no-one can answer .....


It's a typical attempt to sidetrack from verifiable evidence from the believers of hte 9/11 hoax - you cannot actually discuss anything factual, because all eth factual info says you are wrong, so you have to go to inference, assertions, and even fantasy.

It's a bit sad that people can still think like you


I guess what your trying to say is you don't know jack about construction. Right? Figured




no - what I said was that you were begging the question.

How you got from that to my knowledge of construction is something you will ahve to explain a bit more.

you seem to be dismissive of my statement that airliners did not pulverise the buildings - so perhaps you could state what youactually mean by that - to me pulverise means something along the lines of hammer into dust - and as far as I'm concerned the airliners ovbviously did no such thing.

So please feel free to elucidate and expand your reasoning


Yankee - nice selective posting, but why don't you say why the CIA was actually WRONG when they said the info wasn't good enough for a strike, or link to how that "proves" that AQ was CIA funded??


And why didn't yuuo comment about OBL stating the history of the name AQ, and how it does not actually seem to be what you said it was - a myth??


And your comment on the BBC "documentary" supports exactly what I said it was - a guy with a theory and his own concept of "evidence" that is laughable except that it sucks in hte gullible and disaffected like you.

And using Rense asa source has to be a joke right? That's another time I'm pretty sure you're taking the persistance so I'm really wondering if you are asomeone sent by "the establishment" to discredit 9/11 "truthers" by being so blatantly uncriticial of your "evidence"!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by dilly1
 


Looking at your posts English is not your first language so I will give you a little slack but did anyone who believes the OS claim that the structure below the impact point was damaged?

So have you worked out what kind of impact force would be generated when the south tower collapse started or the north tower collapse?



The structure below the impacted area was completely intact and there is no reason at all to believe fire and gravity were the culprits. If you can't understand that your delusional.


There is only one way for the rest of the structures and the structure of building 7 to go down the way it did: Controlled Demolition





And yes my grammar sucks



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dilly1
 


No-one says the aircraft pulverised the building tho - so your request to show how it happened is another case of begging the question - inventing a question about something that did not happen in the first place, and then claiming "victory" when no-one can answer .....


It's a typical attempt to sidetrack from verifiable evidence from the believers of hte 9/11 hoax - you cannot actually discuss anything factual, because all eth factual info says you are wrong, so you have to go to inference, assertions, and even fantasy.

It's a bit sad that people can still think like you


I guess what your trying to say is you don't know jack about construction. Right? Figured




no - what I said was that you were begging the question.

How you got from that to my knowledge of construction is something you will ahve to explain a bit more.

you seem to be dismissive of my statement that airliners did not pulverise the buildings - so perhaps you could state what youactually mean by that - to me pulverise means something along the lines of hammer into dust - and as far as I'm concerned the airliners ovbviously did no such thing.

So please feel free to elucidate and expand your reasoning


Yankee - nice selective posting, but why don't you say why the CIA was actually WRONG when they said the info wasn't good enough for a strike, or link to how that "proves" that AQ was CIA funded??


And why didn't yuuo comment about OBL stating the history of the name AQ, and how it does not actually seem to be what you said it was - a myth??


And your comment on the BBC "documentary" supports exactly what I said it was - a guy with a theory and his own concept of "evidence" that is laughable except that it sucks in hte gullible and disaffected like you.

And using Rense asa source has to be a joke right? That's another time I'm pretty sure you're taking the persistance so I'm really wondering if you are asomeone sent by "the establishment" to discredit 9/11 "truthers" by being so blatantly uncriticial of your "evidence"!



So I know exactly where you stand answer me this:

Yes or No, Do you firmly believe two jets(116 tons each) carrying 22k gallons of fuel pulverized 1,200,000 tons of concrete and mild steel ?


Y or N



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
i know what happened!!!! they must have designed the towers to fall directly in to their own foot prints at free fall speed!!!!!.......=sarcasm



and the second tower fell just because the wind created by the first tower falling, caused it to slip down seamlessly into it's own foot print too!!!!!! at free fall speed just like it was designed to do!!!!!!!!!



and the wind created by the second tower pulled tower 7 down just for the hell of it... and since it was designed to fall directly into it's own foot print at free fall speed, so it did.......


the fact that all three towers fell into their own foot print with out leaning at all, at free fall speed, all in the same day proves my theory!!!! wow, those designers were GENIUS!!!!

what a joke



edit on 16-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join