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.

 

A question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   


Could you please point out for me which is the east wall, north wall, west wall, and south wall and why you think that is the said wall.




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
reply to post by dilly1
 


"If you did you wouldn't have typed that crap."

Be more specific please instead of attacking me.


If you know nothing about construction and you give your opinion on how structurally the towers failed then your point of view is garbage. Please have thick skin, I am not attacking I am drilling in your head how out of touch you are with the physical world. No hard feeling bud.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


So how did the US government get into the towers as well as the enhanced security after the bombing in 93? There are certain elements in the tri-state area that control the unions as well as no-show jobs. They know everything that is going on with any contract, large or small.
You can google the connections yourself.

Do you think these elements would let them stroll in?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



So how did the US government get into the towers as well as the enhanced security after the bombing in 93? There are certain elements in the tri-state area that control the unions as well as no-show jobs. They know everything that is going on with any contract, large or small. You can google the connections yourself.

Do you think these elements would let them stroll in?
Again I don't know how they got in or how they set up the building, but I'm sure there was a way.

George Bush actually had connections to the security company for the World Trade Centers. His brother Marvin Bush worked for that company before and up until the WTC attacks. Read about it here

This paragraph especially is a bombshell:

Securacom also had contracts to provide security services for several facilities, other than the WTC, that were key to the 9/11 attacks, including United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day. Another client was Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), where scientists were working on the development of nanothermite, a type of explosive material that has since been discovered in the WTC dust.

edit on 17-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne



Could you please point out for me which is the east wall, north wall, west wall, and south wall and why you think that is the said wall.


See those things circled in red? Those are the outer walls, what does it matter which is which, can't you figure that out for yourself?

You can see the walls can't you? I think they are the walls because they are, just look jeez. If they are not the outer walls folded in on top, then what are they?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
reply to post by ANOK
 


"If you do then explain how all four outer walls of a building can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building? Do you know enough to realise that can not happen from a natural collapse? "

No, I have not studied "building collapses" to know whether there is a difference between what the rubble looks like after a demolition and after a "natural" collapse as you call it.

One picture is not "evidence," as we well know from the events of 9/11.




You really like to show your flaws dont you? Buildings dont collapse into itselfs, but hey, your ignorance is your bliss, enjoy...



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
reply to post by ANOK
 


"If you do then explain how all four outer walls of a building can end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building? Do you know enough to realise that can not happen from a natural collapse? "

No, I have not studied "building collapses" to know whether there is a difference between what the rubble looks like after a demolition and after a "natural" collapse as you call it.


Then you don't have the knowledge to even argue this point.


One picture is not "evidence," as we well know from the events of 9/11.


How would you know that when you have no idea what you are looking at?

It only takes one pic of WTC7 post collapse to see the outer walls sitting on top of the rest of the collapsed building, which is evidence that the building landed mostly in its own footprint. There is only one way that can happen...


Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

WTC 7 shows all the signs of a classic implosion demolition, from the 'penthouse kink' to the fact that it landed mostly in its own footprint, evidence by all four outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


No hard feelings, but instead of calling my OPINIONS crap and garbage, back up your comments other than to just say what I am saying is "crap" or "garbage."

I am not an engineer and I did not explain how "structurally the towers failed." I simply said that it does not surprise me that WTC7 collapsed because I believe that the impact from WTC 1&2 collapsing was the equivalent of an earthquake and could have certainly caused structural damage to the buildings around it. I am not an expert in skyscrappers but I have helped to manage construction sites for homes and small commercial buidlings. I've seen someone drive a lull into the foundtation of 2 story building causing a collapse, so it's not completely out there for me to comprehend that debris hitting a building repeatedly or two buildings near by coming down and causing damage to the foundation of a building, thereby compromising it's structural integrity.

Again, instead of attacking me, how about explaining why you think I'm incorrect in my OPINIONS.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I've tried searching, but can't find any ariel photos of WTC 1&2 immediately after collapse,after the dust has settled. Surely, you have those photos as well that would help suport your point. Can you kindly direct me to those so that I can see what you are saying. Again, just the photo of WTC 7 doesn't mean anything when I have nothing to compare it to.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Marvin Bush was on a board and not during 9/11. get your facts straight. You have to stop qouting web sites and research for yourself.

and if you don't know how why post it as a theory. Obviously you have an idea. Why not share it?
edit on 17-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
reply to post by ANOK
 


I've tried searching, but can't find any ariel photos of WTC 1&2 immediately after collapse,after the dust has settled. Surely, you have those photos as well that would help suport your point. Can you kindly direct me to those so that I can see what you are saying. Again, just the photo of WTC 7 doesn't mean anything when I have nothing to compare it to.


What has 'ariel' [sic] pics of 1&2 have to do with WTC 7, and the evidence that it collapsed into its own footprint?

The towers did not collapse in the same way as 7. The towers did not collapse into their footprints, too tall and skinny for that style of collapse. The towers debris was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc as shown by FEMA...



The fact that debris was ejected, and not still in the footprint, proves that it was not a 'pancake collapse' as claimed by OSers. Even NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis.

To understand that, and why the collapses were different, you need to have some at least basic knowledge of engineering and physics. That is the major flaw of OS supporters. All you have is what other people are telling you, and you will accept what seems to make sense that fits your preconceived assumptions. Actually even extremely smart people do that sometimes.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Photos of WTC1&2 are relevant because it is "assumed" by some that all three buildings were taken down the same way - just that 1&2 were hit by planes or missiles in order to get the ball rolling for the "demo." If that's the case, then the debris from 1 & 2 would look similar to that of 7.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



"too tall and skinny for that style of collapse"

You can't have it both ways - either 1 & 2 were demoed like 7, in which case they would have fallen like 7, regardless how how tall and skinny they were.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
This reply is for ESDAD71,


Sorry "halo guy" but your ignorantly wrong(love the halo game though). Anyone with the desire to learn construction can acquire it thru hands-on training or a degree in engineering to clearly understand how a high-rise is built and how it can be pulverized/collapsed/disintegrate (however you want to call it) in one day.


So it isn't choosing construction or demolition , its understanding physics, its understand structures. Whether one decides to study construction,design or engineering you are required(one of the first requirements) to take a class called structures(I and II) . Once you take it the first thing you learn are the dynamics in gravity and matter. Since gravity is a pretty strait forward force ,high-rises have to be designed into being one complete unit(many ways of doing that depending on the budget of course) . The most obvious perception involving matter is ,If one object is smaller than the other, it cannot trump the larger mass.

The 911 floor by floor theory is a fabricated lie. Nothing more. People like you don't know construction so you would believe a theory as such. The mass above the impacted section cannot trump the "floor" below because the floor below is not supported by itself. The building is one entire unit for the simple fact a domino effect doesn't ever happen(this is a fundamental rule in structures)... Key phrase "one unit"... The concrete slabs are only 4k to 5kpsi with post tension cables. Could the slab/floor below the impacted section fail do to the beams above the fire holding the remaining floors to suddenly fail ?. Yes it is possible, the slab could fail, but that's why we use columns, and WTC had hundred and hundreds of 5 inch thick steel columns(welded together,, as one unit). And(again) if you learn construction you will see steel columns(same concept with concrete sheer walls) are welded together(obviously concrete sheer walls are not welded together) as one vertical unit. If the floor by floor theory was true then we would have seen the floors collapsing down while every vertical structural component is still standing upright.
The theory is bunk.



You clearly must not have any common sense, or maybe you do and your being paid to deflect and derail the opposing argument. I don't know..... But there is only one way to dismantle all that WTC steel within one day,,, and its not gravity or mass(cause I already debunked those too factors in the paragraph above). It can only be done by controlled demolition. I don't know and I don't care if it was explosives or thermate or both. What I do know for a fact is it was done by men who are experts in construction and demolition. The mushroom affect we all saw that day was not the slabs being pulverized by the mass above pushing down floor by floor. The mushroom affect was concrete being blown up by something artificially made by man. What you don't care to learn is there is no set in stone way in demolishing a structure. Its actually an art. Blowing # up is actually fun. And one can make the structure fall in any way or angle, its truly amazing.


You firmly believe that fire damaged the integrity of the structure ,but fire can't damage the integrity of the structure because the integrity of a structure is located in the lower half not the very top floors . Every building(this is common sense) is stronger and heavier in the lower half vs the upper half. The concrete psi is higher , the rebar is thicker , the steel is slightly thicker(or more support columns implemented),, all in the lower half of the building. The higher you go the lighter the building gets, lower the building the stronger and heavier it gets.


**Anyone disputing this is being biased and lying . Any diagrams or charts are pointless cause of there questionable authenticity. The actual blue prints now will never be accepted do to the possibility of manipulation for ones agenda. **

That's why you debunkers or people uneducated in construction, must learn how structures are built and how they are demolished. If you really , suggest you start reading


The last part of your post sounds more like ranting with no substance. I really don't know if any evidence of caps or charges were found or visible to recognize . But I do know , and you don't obviously, is people contracted by government(local,state or Fed) do not question or risk there platform from getting eliminated. And once you cross the government your done for life... And this is at any level(gov.employee or a contracted architect doesn't matter who). Of course one could make a living in the private sector but if you know any architect ,engineer or GC that is extremely well off with only private work then take a picture,,,not too many of them exist. Government work is vital for architects,engineers......and most of these professionals work in firms.. Huge firms. You think the CEO would appreciate one of his guys yapping away on the use of thermate with 911?


Bottom line your blindly believing your Government with out checking for yourself what is what. Your obviously interested cause your posting in ATS, so take the time to learn. I don't know were you live and don't care but try to observe any high-rise being built(which I doubt that's happening anywhere now with the building bubble bursting years ago).



So I'll say it again for the billionth time.

Its is impossible for two 116ton jets carrying 23k gallons of fuel CAN collapse three massive structures weighing 1,200,000tons(combined) of concrete and steel. All collapsing in one day. Its all a lie.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Marvin Bush was on a board and not during 9/11. get your facts straight. You have to stop qouting web sites and research for yourself.
You don't need to get your panties in a bunch and get all cranky just because I misspoke.

Let me re-state what I said: Marvin Bush was on the Board of Directors for a security company of the World Trade Centers from 1996 to 2000. The company itself however still had a contract with the World Trade Centers up until their collapse.
edit on 17-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
reply to post by ANOK
 



"too tall and skinny for that style of collapse"

You can't have it both ways - either 1 & 2 were demoed like 7, in which case they would have fallen like 7, regardless how how tall and skinny they were.


No again you fail to understand. There are different ways to collapse buildings. WTC 7 was a classic 'implosion' demolition, if you don't know what that is you need to do some research instead of arguing from ignorance.

The towers were NOT an implosion style demolition. Different buildings different demolition style.

For an implosion demolition they drop the center of the building first in a carefully timed sequence, so fast that it causes the outer walls to fall into the space created. If the timing is off it will not work. It can not happen from an uncontrolled collapse. Now the towers were too tall for all its mass to land in its footprint, why that is should be obvious no? If it isn't obvious then you need to do some research, and quit arguing from ignorance. I'm not here to teach people the basics of physics and engineering.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rswalla
reply to post by dilly1
 


No hard feelings, but instead of calling my OPINIONS crap and garbage, back up your comments other than to just say what I am saying is "crap" or "garbage."

I am not an engineer and I did not explain how "structurally the towers failed." I simply said that it does not surprise me that WTC7 collapsed because I believe that the impact from WTC 1&2 collapsing was the equivalent of an earthquake and could have certainly caused structural damage to the buildings around it. I am not an expert in skyscrappers but I have helped to manage construction sites for homes and small commercial buidlings. I've seen someone drive a lull into the foundtation of 2 story building causing a collapse, so it's not completely out there for me to comprehend that debris hitting a building repeatedly or two buildings near by coming down and causing damage to the foundation of a building, thereby compromising it's structural integrity.

Again, instead of attacking me, how about explaining why you think I'm incorrect in my OPINIONS.




Your small amounts of experiences is not enough to explain the structural failure let alone conclude the collapse was some form of an earthquake(lol,,,I'm sorry,,, I have to laugh)). . I'm sorry your way way way off. If you want to learn read my hundreds of posts on this thread and pretty much every other 911 thread. No one on ATS can argue with my construction points.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Show how he is way way off with your vast wealth of construction knowledge. Please Do not tell people to read hundreds of threads as answer. Do it here. Personally, based on your responses, i don't think you could build a lego building let alone deconstruct a set of blueprints for comparative purposes.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


No panties in a wad...just want to make sure only facts are represented. I would not be worried about his being on the board as much as what they sold to the PANY. Electronic Security devices...would that not help the argument that there was inside help. More than someone with no influence on a BOD.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



No panties in a wad...just want to make sure only facts are represented. I would not be worried about his being on the board as much as what they sold to the PANY. Electronic Security devices...would that not help the argument that there was inside help. More than someone with no influence on a BOD.
I don't know how much power he had, what he did in the company, or what he was in charge of, because I've never really thought the "how did they get into the building" part was really too important.

My knowledge in that topic is elementary at best.

I try to focus more on the actual proof that it was a demolition, because if that is proven, establishing how they got into the building is irrelevant because the controlled demolition itself is proof that they got in and set up

But along with selling electronic security devices, the company also was responsible for the security for United Airlines and Dulles Airport, the airport where Flight 77 took off from. It talks about ithere.

So I think there is definitely something there but I need to look in on it more.
edit on 17-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post




top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join