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: 27
17
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



It is impossible for a natural collapse to mimic a controlled 'implosion' demolition.


Really? Prove it. Run through all possible scenarios, conditions, events, or "natural forces" that may compromise the structural integrity of the structure in such a way so as to cause the collapse as was witnessed on 9/11/2001.

Don't care about your semantics, you can call it controlled or unnatural or manmade or whatever floats your boat. But prove by process of complete elimination that what was witnessed on 9/11 could not have occured by any other means than the careful and purposeful placement of explosives.




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Physics proves it. It's not my fault you fail to understand basic physics that has been explained over and over again to you. Stop saying prove it, I already have. It's up to you to prove a building can land in its own footprint from a natural collapse, good luck with that because it has never happened before.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
No need for physics. Physics worked on 9/11 or they would not have collapsed. I mean, do you realize how you sound when you continue to state this.

Here are 2 buildings that collapsed into their own footprints...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Grand Central, also in NY but never mentioned. Changes were being made just like the retrofit of WTC 7 which also collapsed.

farm2.static.flickr.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Then another six story building. Fell into its own footprint with NO airplanes and NO fuel.




Engineers investigated the various additions made to the building after its initial construction. Air conditioning systems had been constructed on the roof of the building, the bank had added a large safe, and ceramic tiles had been fixed to the building's exterior, all adding considerably to the building's weight. It was found that the weight of these additions was inconsequential; however this line of investigation led to the discovery that the original structural engineer had made a serious error in calculating the building's dead load, the weight of the building itself. The structural engineer had calculated the building's live load, the weight of the building's potential inhabitants, furniture, fixtures and fittings. However the building's dead load was completely omitted from the calculation. This meant that the building as constructed could not support its own weight. Collapse was only a matter of time and after three different supporting columns had failed in the days before the disaster, the other columns, which took on the added weight no longer supported by the failed columns, could not support the building.


Building collapse all the time.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





I mean, do you realize how you sound when you continue to state this.


Irony.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Then another six story building. Fell into its own footprint with NO airplanes and NO fuel.


You are just really confused as to what 'in its own footprint' means.

You have shown no evidence any of those buildings fell into their own footprints, i.e. the outer walls all landed on top of the collapsed building.

Yes esdad we know buildings collapse. You just don't know how to recognize the difference between a building collapsing, and a building collapsing into its own footprint. Your attention to detail in this discussion is zero.

None of your links show post collapse pics, so how do you know how they landed? Do you have pics like this...



...to prove your point? That pic shows walls on top of the rest of the debris, evidence that it landed mostly in its own footprint. Your quote about the six story doesn't even make that claim.

BTW this one was an explosion, a gas explosion...

en.wikipedia.org...

Nice fail esdad.


edit on 8/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


ha ha, i've seen moss on my back yard fires smoke just as much......didn't mean it was much of a fire though...



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by hooper
 


Physics proves it. It's not my fault you fail to understand basic physics that has been explained over and over again to you. Stop saying prove it, I already have. It's up to you to prove a building can land in its own footprint from a natural collapse, good luck with that because it has never happened before.


Sorry, you said "impossibe".

"Impossible" has a very high standard.

You've proved nothing more than you think because some sections of the outer walls are on top of the debris pile in one photo that explosives and only explosives could have been used. That is not proof that is uneducated speculation at best.

Now prove your statement. What does not count as proof are photos and videos of building demolitions and crying about how they look alike. That's like looking at a grilled cheese sandwich with the silouhette of Jesus and declaring that is proof that God exist.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Building collapse all the time.
Of course! How could we be so ignorant! Buildings collapse all the time guys, give it a rest you crazy truthers.

Esdad, surely you can provide us with the names of some skyscrapers that have collapsed before, right? I mean, skyscrapers collapse all the time, don't they? A fire here, a fire there, and the building collapses symmetrically at free-fall speed.

Your first example:

On August 3, 1973, allegedly [color=limegreen]due in part to illegal alterations on a basement bearing wall, a section of the Broadway facade of the structure then known as the Broadway Central Hotel collapsed onto Broadway, killing four residents of the hotel.


Your second example:

A gas explosion was thought to be a possible cause.


Why didn't you post any examples where the cause was fire?
edit on 22-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Why didn't you post any examples where the cause was fire?


Or even complete collapses.

None of those collapses were anything like the WTC collapses.

It proves the OSers don't even understand the difference between a complete collapse into its footprint, and a partial collapse due to gas explosions or structural damage. Or they do, and they are trying to be deceptive, whatever they have blown it.

If they don't understand the difference between a partial collapse, and a complete collapse, then it proves they have zero understanding of physics. They have zero credibility. They have no right to tell us we are wrong about our understanding of the physics. How can someone claim to be educated in physics when they make such basic mistakes in their understanding?

We already know their game is to confuse and dismiss, if people pay attention to posts like esdads then they should see it's obvious.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, you said "impossibe".


Yes.


"Impossible" has a very high standard.


Well in physics some things are possible, and some are impossible.


You've proved nothing more than you think because some sections of the outer walls are on top of the debris pile in one photo that explosives and only explosives could have been used. That is not proof that is uneducated speculation at best.


Nope there is more than one photo showing the outer walls folded in on top of the debris. But it only takes one to show that.

Unless you can prove a building can fall in that fashion from a natural collapse, then yes I am sticking by my claims. It's up to you now to prove me wrong not just claim that it's uneducated speculation. You act like the expert who only needs to say so, not prove so. So get at it huh?


Now prove your statement. What does not count as proof are photos and videos of building demolitions and crying about how they look alike. That's like looking at a grilled cheese sandwich with the silouhette of Jesus and declaring that is proof that God exist.


Stupid. So a photo of a persons body can not be used as evidence in court of proof of injuries?

Can you explain how the four outer walls can land on top of the rest of the collapsed building, yes or no?

Yeah one photo...


















edit on 8/22/2011 by ANOK because: too add pics



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Can you explain how the four outer walls can land on top of the rest of the collapsed building, yes or no?

First prove that they represent all four of the outer walls. You keep repeating that claim but provide no evidence to suppor it. They are outer wall sections. But all four? Sorry, no dice.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

First prove that they represent all four of the outer walls. You keep repeating that claim but provide no evidence to suppor it. They are outer wall sections. But all four? Sorry, no dice.


The photo's are the evidence.

Quit pretending you can't see the walls.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hooper

First prove that they represent all four of the outer walls. You keep repeating that claim but provide no evidence to suppor it. They are outer wall sections. But all four? Sorry, no dice.


The photo's are the evidence.

Quit pretending you can't see the walls.


And they are all four of the outer walls? How can you prove this? How do you know that they are not sections of the same wall?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
There is no fail. You asked a question. You were provided an answer. Google the pictures as I am not a butler but I will give you an answer that is not false. You asked and you got. Sad part is that you cannot actually say, wow, you are right, but try to give a reason why the towers collapse was different. All you do is keep going back to a picture that shows the walls sheered which would have happened since there were several levels of basement.

You are clinging to the 'never happened before' but that is not true. Both buildings I linked to collapsed into themselves. That was what you asked. However, I am sure you will still not respond to 'where' the evidence of collapse is. Because there is none. With no evidence there is no case. If you were trying this case in court it would not get passed a grand jury.

Do you not find it funny that 10 years later not one, ONE, person has come forward. In this day in age where a person will sell out another for 100 bucks you believe the government can plan an op that involves high jacking 4 planes, setting explosives in 3 buildings, making sure that everyone who may have been involved has said nothing. What, do you think the mind eraser in MIB is real?

No matter the argument or picture will trump physical evidence and ONE account of being on the inside. Where is it?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



There is no fail. You asked a question. You were provided an answer. Google the pictures as I am not a butler but I will give you an answer that is not false. You asked and you got. Sad part is that you cannot actually say, wow, you are right, but try to give a reason why the towers collapse was different. All you do is keep going back to a picture that shows the walls sheered which would have happened since there were several levels of basement.

You are clinging to the 'never happened before' but that is not true. Both buildings I linked to collapsed into themselves. That was what you asked. However, I am sure you will still not respond to 'where' the evidence of collapse is. Because there is none. With no evidence there is no case. If you were trying this case in court it would not get passed a grand jury.
There is a fail, a pretty big one. Neither of those buildings were brought down by fire, the first one came down because of "illegal alterations on a basement bearing wall", and the second one was brought down by a "gas explosion". So, just like ANOK said, fail.

Can you provide us with an example of a skyscraper that has collapsed to the ground due to fire damage? Nope.


Do you not find it funny that 10 years later not one, ONE, person has come forward. In this day in age where a person will sell out another for 100 bucks you believe the government can plan an op that involves high jacking 4 planes, setting explosives in 3 buildings, making sure that everyone who may have been involved has said nothing.
So nobody has ratted them out, therefore it didn't happen! Bravo, esdad, your flawless logic never fails.

With a false flag attack of such a massive scale, I don't think Bush would just show up at a military base, walk around and say "You, you, you, you, and you, come with me, we're going to blow up the twin towers, kill 3,000 people, and you're not going to say a thing, got it?". This would involve more planning than just recruiting some goons and hoping that all goes well and nobody snitches, not that I'm a false-flag connoisseur or anything, but that's just common sense IMO.


What, do you think the mind eraser in MIB is real?
In all seriousness, the secret government technology that billions of taxpayer dollars pay for yet remain secret from all of us are undoubtedly beyond anything we could even imagine, so I would not exactly poop my pants out of sheer astonishment if I found out that a mind eraser was a reality.
edit on 22-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



He said...and I quote...

It's up to you to prove a building can land in its own footprint from a natural collapse, good luck with that because it has never happened before.

It has. That is what I answered. The point is they collapsed into a foot print with no airliners striking them nor tons of jet fuel igniting. It shows it can happen. He was stating an absolute and he is incorrect.

As far as technology, you are correct, there is technology that is incredible. The government is always 30-40 years ahead with skunkworks.

As far as whistle blowers, step outside of movies and think about it. There is always someone.


edit on 22-8-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



It has. That is what I answered. The point is they collapsed into a foot print with no airliners striking them nor tons of jet fuel igniting. It shows it can happen. He was stating an absolute and he is incorrect.
"They collapsed into a footprint", how do you know this? Did you watch the collapse and see the aftermath?

The best way I can explain collapsing into a footprint would be the top of the building lands right where the base of the building used to be, and I have serious doubts that your two examples did this.


As far as whistle blowers, step outside of movies and think about it. There is always someone.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here, because your common sense tells you that somebody would blow the lid off the whole thing, but my common sense tells me that the key players in such a serious operation wouldn't even consider involving people who might be at risk of blabbing.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

And they are all four of the outer walls? How can you prove this? How do you know that they are not sections of the same wall?


Look at the pictures hooper, I posted plenty for you to look at, and count the walls you see.

Do I need to hold you hand through everything?

But regardless as I have said many times, there shouldn't be ANY of the outer wall on top of the rest of the building, there is only one way that can happen and that is the wall has to fall inwards, which is never going to happen from a natural collapse because that is the path of most resistance, and the chances that fire, or asymmetrical damage, can take away that resistance before it pushes the wall outwards is beyond reason.

When a building collapsed everything goes down and outwards, the outer walls are pushed outwards by the buildings interior collapsing and pushing them into the path of least resistance. The walls would be showing their inside face, and the rubble should be on top of them. EVEN IF the collapse is vertical, straight down.
The only way to get the outer walls to land on top of the rubble is to time the collapse perfectly as has been explained.

You are arguing for the most illogical explanation there is. A explanation that requires an event that would be so remote as to make it near enough impossible. You have no argument other than pretending you don't see the walls. You can see walls from all four directions on top. They would not be there if fire collapsed that building. They're pretty clear to see...



Find another POST collapse pic that shows the outer walls like that from a natural collapse and I'll quit, OK? Not a building that just collapsed, but one that collapsed with all four outer walls resting on top of the rest of the collapsed building.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


This is wildly illogical for so many reasons. Fire caused the structure to collapse. Because the fire didn't burn exactly evenly across all floors, etc, the building did not collapse evenly. This resulted in, in some places, the outside in nature me the collapse. On top of all of that ht doesn't even LOOK like a demo. And there are dozens of witnesses who said the whole building was on fire. And no one reported dozens of visible and audible timed explosions.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Can you explain how the four outer walls can land on top of the rest of the collapsed building, yes or no?


The floors collapsed internally pulling the remains of the outer walls on top of the pile.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join