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.

 

9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

page: 14
283
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Then where did all the plane parts disappear to within minutes after the crash? Unless, let me guess, you don't believe the matter of fact statements of the police chief in the video. Are you here to say "it's not true?" Like I said, not to be taken seriously.

Most likely those witnesses were coerced into their testimony. Happens all the time. You can believe what you want. I'll trust the police that arrived minutes after the crash.




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentC

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jplotinus
 



The 35 second video you refer us to shows the spire turning to dust. Further, the spire was more than 50 stories in height. The scant remains of the towers, consisting in a virtually flat ground zero, show no evidence of a 50+ story spire.

Those who claim the spire fell, rather than disintegrate, have an obligation not merely to suggest to others what is or is not shown in a video. Rather, there is an additional obligation to show some evidence of a structure that large on the ground. It was nowhere to be found at gz.
I gotta say you made some pretty good points. I believe it's most likely an illusion caused by the spire falling, and the dust is really just slower to fall than the steel giving it the appearance of disintegrating. However when I watch this video....it seriously looks like it turns to dust:


It's dropping and leaving a dust trail. I remember the first time I saw this video and read the evaporation theory. To be honest, at the time, I saw what I wanted to see. You have to be careful not to let others plant a mental impression in your mind to cloud what you are actually seeing.

I watched this all unfold on television while at home nursing a broken ankle. Before there was a "911 truth movement." It was just common sense to me as I watched the twin towers fall that it was a controlled demolition. In fact, I was a little beside myself when I watched the second tower fall. And when I watched tower 7 fall later that day ... it clenched it for me ... and I have had no reservations otherwise since that day.

It is unfortunate that the "truth movement" has been infiltrated with the loons (psyops?) who claim such things as holographic planes and such. I believe that planes did hit the twin towers, but I am not entirely convinced that they were common passenger jets, nor am I entirely convince that a passenger jet hit the pentacon. It is absolutely BS that showing ALL the videos confiscated would be detrimental to "national security".

Short version.


Long version.


Anyhow, you have done a great job and I tip my hat to you.


I do not grasp the reasoning behind claims that "the 'truth movement' has been infiltrated with the loons (psyops?) who claim such things as holographic planes and such." The point of that was being discussed was whether the videos showed the 50+ story spire turning to dust or falling. As what is seen in a video is, ultimately, a subjective determination, made by the viewer, there is no right or wrong answer. What is certain is that NIST provided no answer as it did not investigate the conditions associated with the destruction of the Twin Towers.

One other, among many, factors that can be mentioned here is that of sound. The eyewitnesses to the event describe it as being relatively quiet. Certainly, the lack of sound of large steel segments hitting others and crashing to the ground are not present and are not claimed. In my opinion, those who claim a 50+ story steel segment crashed to the ground face the contradiction of the lack of sound confirming their interpretation of the visual information.

A second and related factor is the seismic data. Not only was there no confirming seismic signal of a 50+ story steel segment hitting the ground, there was likewise little seismic evidence of any part of the towers hitting the ground. Hence, not only did the spire turn to dust, the entire building(s) turned largely to dust. In adition to seismic data, the visual imagery and the eyewitness accounts likewise show little or no evidence of shaking or of disturbance that would be expected from large structures hitting the ground.

In summary, no evidence of large structural members on the ground, no sound and no seismic. If those who claim the 50+ story spire hit the ground can point to factors that support their visual interpretation, they are welcome to post them as doing so would add to the value of this discussion.

Finally, just a word about holograms. The technology exists. The explanation helps to resolve the conflict among eyewitnesses. Most who were verifiably present and who had an obligation to be alert, almost invariably report seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. They do not report seeing a jetliner. One can ask, how could they have missed seeing a jetliner 1000ft(+/-) above their heads; and, how could they not be certain they heard the characteristic sound of a jet, especially one zooming in at 500+mph? However, to account for the minority of known eyewitnesses who claim they saw some sort of plane (small, large, missile, etc.), the hologram postulate has merit.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Strype
 


1. Formulate questions you have predisposed answers for.
The question for any investigation of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7 would be "What caused them to collapse?".


2. Perform research and record observations from biased websites who agree with your deluded mind state.
The research was to get an understanding of how fire affects skyscrapers, and how buildings collapse. The question being "how did they collapse", it would be foolish to not investigate other building collapses. And since the primary trigger in the collapses was fire damage, ignoring all fires that have occured in skyscrapers would also be foolish.


3. Construct hypothesis and make predictions based on an "official" report that refused to answer the important questions and made blind assumptions labeled "evidence" instead.
Are you talking about NIST?


4. Test with experiments that are falsified and fail to use all available information, in order to fit the current agenda.
The hypothesis was "Were the towers brought down by a controlled demolition", and the prediction was that their collapse would exhibit demolition characteristics. So how is the supporting evidence falsified if it actually backs up the hypothesis rather than proves it to be false? Is that not the exact opposite of falsified?



5. Analyze falsified results and draw inaccurate conclusions.
Um....no? The hypothesis was that the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, the prediction was that it would exhibit characteristics of one, the evidence validated that prediction.

The buildings exhibited 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition, concluding that they were a controlled demolition is about as far from accurate as you can get.


6. Pretend the hypothesis has been corroborated, and report results immediately as an obvious explanation.
Uh there's no "pretending" going on here, the hypothesis has been corroborated. You should try reading through the thread again, or at the very least research the scientific method.

The controlled demolition hypothesis is corroborated by the evidence presented within this thread, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they were brought down by controlled demolition.

It's scary, I know. The idea that our government would do this is pure conspiracy theorist insanity, they must get some sick pleasure from spreading slanderous lies about our do-no-harm government, because it can't possibly be true! Well dude, if you can't read through this thread and be completely convinced that they were brought down by a controlled demolition, you're clearly not interested in the truth.
edit on 13-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Just a quick look at the spire i did a frame by frame from the sauret video...being as it is a fixed camera position one can use co-ordinates properly to break things down...Now the antenna was connected to the hat truss...so i will show both as i have done in another thread...I am thinking that this thread is a good place for trying to keep details of building failure all in one place....











I used all the same co ordinates and used the series of frames i got from the sauret video

red line i kept the same in length using pixels...and used the orb as a ref point....I then used the same co-ordinates for the blue line always...therefore the redline moves with the mast....

the green line represents distance traveled...which is aprox 10ft using the leading edge of roofline which was aprox ten feet according to wtc design drawings.

Now the mast is not some standalone feature that sits ontop of the roof...it is attached to the hat truss...



so with all this and the photos and video...central core is taken out...

now also Bazant Zhou being used suggests a crush down progressives collapse...in order for this to occur....the upper block needs to stay intact all the way through crush down phase and then crush up can take place.

so lets look...again i used the Sauret video due to the fixed camera.












bar on the right follows path of the building collapse...each segment represent aprox 10ft...the height of a floor

between yellow and green line the impact and apparent collapse area....the white block at the end the original block...

what it shows is the upper block underoing a huge crush up which right there means the progessive collapse put forward by Bazant Zhou would not occur and the collapse would actually stop due to the loss of mass.




now from observation the upper block has already penetrated at least four to five floor into the lower block yet the lower block as you can see by the right corner has not suffered the damage that should have already been caused by the upper blocks impact....so through observation one can only surmise the upper block is itself demolishing before impacting the lower block or already suffering Crush up







and finally we have...



so in my honest opinion....should we believe the Bazant Zhou report that took over after the NIST initiation phase of the collapse and then left it to Bazant Zhou to come up with the collapse senario...is this what you see occured.


personally i do not.

NOTE the red bar is where the bottom of the upper block is the white lines are missing two floors off the bottom as it would have gone off the frame...the red bar is to where the impact should have already progressed to.
edit on 093030p://f10Tuesday by plube because: Note



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Hello

Nice thread O.P. It's well researched and nicely put together.
Haven't watched the video yet but I will.

Just wanted to point out a couple of things I have seen when the towers collapsed.

On one piece of footage of the twin towers you can see part of what I think isthe core still standing after evreything else has collapsed, it comes down itself a few seconds(?) later I think.
Also, on another bit of footage you can see a massive chunk of tower fall to the side when the towers are collapsing.
I can't remember in all of the 9/11 stuff I have absorbed if these things have been mentioned or discussed (they almost certainly have but you can't read everything). The reason I bring them up is both of these things to me suggest a natural collapse, but I am no engineer!
I will see if I can find them, post them and we can talk about them hopefully (both of them have been on T.V this week, just can't remember on what!, Youtube, here I come...)

Cheers

edit: Found a couple of videos, what do you think?

www.youtube.com...
This video shows the remnants of the core collapsing

www.youtube.com...
Somewhat shows what I am on about on the second point. Look to the right, I think it may be a floor. it is not as clear on this video as others I have seen.



edit on 13-9-2011 by doubleplusungood because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2011 by doubleplusungood because: video added

edit on 13-9-2011 by doubleplusungood because: last video added



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
REPLY TO - Originally posted by plube

I applaud your post but there are a few discrepancies.

The Bazant and Zhou provided a theory days after the collapse. Days. At that point, no one was sure what had triggered the event however this provided an early explanation on how it could have happened. The country was still in shock as they should have been. No matter your thought on Physics it was a tragedy for our country.

NIST's final report was also released after a few drafts so make sure you have the last release and also your dates correct becuase 'Bazant Zhou'
did not take over from anything NIST had provided because the investigation had not even started.

This is why I keep asking what is new 10 years later...it is a dead horse...there is no physical evidence except in JFK Hangar 17 and even on Mars...(yes, the rovers have piece of the towers within them), there is no suspension of the laws of physics(there is no loss of mass if it is accelerating and collecting floors as it falls) and especially no lasers. If there was one, just one little piece of something. They are still finding pieces of human bone to this day in the area. Any demolition, no matter how covert would leave something you could hold and easily identify. Trust me, if I saw that I would not be 'in denial'
anymore. I do not drink the kool aid just because I think there are no explosives. Honestly, I think the it was a combination of poor construction combined with the event that caused the collapse. It was a unique structure, new for its time, and built for maximum space not safety. Read the history of the entire area and not just the buildings. You had no adherence to codes at the time and those available dated to the 30's and prior. Why is this so far fetched? It happens all time. Imagine the lawsuits and how long the money would be tied up if it was found to have fallen based on the poor design. There is a conspiracy for you.

When is there going to be something new instead of the same old rehashed video posts. Where is the new thought or theory is all I ask or even an original idea?


edit on 13-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Any demolition, no matter how covert would leave something you could hold and easily identify
Try reading the thread of the OP you're posting in next time.

"You wouldn't need miles and miles of det. cord, you could have used wireless remote detonators and they have been available for years....and of course the military has them as well. Contractors don't use them on the other hand because they're just too expensive....What we use now is RDX copper jacketed shape charges, and when they're initiated there is nothing left of those charges."



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



1)Are they ALL steel framed?
Yes, all but the one which suffered a partial collapse, which I explained clearly in the OP.


2)Are they all tube in tube design?
I don't believe so, however they are steel-framed skyscrapers (excluding the final example of course). Care to post the building designs that you took the time to examine?


3)Did they all have around 110 floors
No and that is irrelevant.


4)Were the floors one acre in area with around 700+ tons of concrete on each floor?
No, but thank you for pointing out that more severe fires affecting a smaller area than the Twin Towers and WTC7 does not cause even a partial collapse.


5)Were they hit by a large passanger aircraft at 500mph to cause structural, explosive(fuel) and then fire damage?
No they weren't, thank you for rhetorically pointing out an obvious fact. I have one for you: Was WTC7 "hit by a large passenger aircraft at 500mph"?


6)Was the floor system supported by an open truss system.
I don't know, I don't have the blueprints of the buildings on file, sorry. Do you have any proof to support your "NO!" regarding this question?


7)Were the floors held up by small sections of angle iron on exterior and interior steel.
Refer to the above answer.


8)Did the respective fire departments tackle the fires/or sprinkler systems if installed work?
Eventually yes, however take a look at the time that the fires burned and reconsider what you said. 17, 18, 6, 3, and 4 hours.



Not a very good start for your scientific standpoint ?
That is just one section of the initial research and observations, and the fact of the matter remains that steel-framed skyscrapers have never even suffered a partial collapse due to fire damage. So to answer your question, yes, it actually is a very good start for my scientific standpoint.


Now number 8 if you look at your examples some are concrete framed and if you read the reports lots of steelwork either collapsed or threatened to collapse also they either were tackled by the fire departments or sprinkler systems worked!!!

That didn't happen at the towers did it?
They burned for 17, 18, 6, 3, and 4 hours, compared to less than 2 hours for both Twin Towers.



The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns.
Thank you for pointing out that which is explained in the OP. The buildings structure was not steel-framed, that is made very clear in the OP.


The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork
i.e. steel-framed skyscrapers don't suffer critical structural damage due to fire. Thank you for validating the observation made in the OP.


Without the effective fire fighting on the 16th floor by the fire brigade, the fire could have spread to all floors above.
And?


It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented
Further validation that fire does not cause skyscrapers to collapse to the ground.



There are also problems with the others you gave, not got time to show those will do when I get back from a business trip and we can also look at at your other scientific proof.
I'll be waiting, because you have a lot more debunking to do than a fraction of 1/7th of the OP.


I mean when these guys can watch videos of the WTC 7 collapse and not even come close to the time it took to collapse how scientific are they!
Scientific enough to use the scientific method.


Apples with apples or its BS and YOU KNOW THAT!
I hate to generalize like this, but why do OSers constantly type in all caps? Loud doesn't mean right.
edit on 13-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I did. Please tell me one time in history that the military covertly took down 3 buildings all over 50 stories let alone a CDI company? You are talking in theory and not in fact. You cannot just quote someone and state that is how it happened. Where is the physical evidence?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



I did. Please tell me one time in history that the military covertly took down 3 buildings all over 50 stories let alone a CDI company?
9/11


You are talking in theory and not in fact.
As were the other government investigations. The OP is filled with facts.


You cannot just quote someone and state that is how it happened.
I just did.


Where is the physical evidence?
Read the OP again and then reply. If after reading the OP you can't find this physical evidence, I will walk you through it a step at a time.

edit on 13-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


None of the towers you named were designed in the same fashion. None.The WTC did not have the think inner core of concrete nor solid concrete in other parts of the structure. It was designed for open office space..as much as they could squeeze. Therefore, fewer inner columns and the truss design as used connected to the outer frame with the controversial viso-elasitc dampeners and you have something much different than the solid concrete building as you are showing. They are also not 100 stories high. WTC 7 was not high, but was a fefurbed building which again could have been poor engineering, design or construction but since the guy who owned it was set to collect there would be no investigation. There is as conspiracy but still, no explosives.....



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by wecanthandlethetruth
 


Deeper in the building? Probably hotter, where the fire was not as exposed to the outside air. Obviously the volume of the smoke was evidence of something burning inside, right? It didn't seem like a tiny fire. Same with WTC 7. That was a LOT of smoke! Are you trying to imply that the fires were burning cold?


That does not make any sense. How can the fire be hotter from the inside where it would be suffocated than an open air fire? What fuels fire? Oxygen. Without oxygen, there is no fire. If you are at a point when only smoke is visible, but not fire, it is not a big fire burning and has not reached it's full potential. It is still in the incipient stage of fire which is the first stage. It never even came close to being classified as a stage three or four fire.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jplotinus
Finally, just a word about holograms. The technology exists. The explanation helps to resolve the conflict among eyewitnesses. Most who were verifiably present and who had an obligation to be alert, almost invariably report seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. They do not report seeing a jetliner. One can ask, how could they have missed seeing a jetliner 1000ft(+/-) above their heads; and, how could they not be certain they heard the characteristic sound of a jet, especially one zooming in at 500+mph? However, to account for the minority of known eyewitnesses who claim they saw some sort of plane (small, large, missile, etc.), the hologram postulate has merit.


As you have dismissed the falling spire and asked others to provide evidence, I would ask you to support your statement that the technology exists for such a hologram. There is currently nothing that can be proved to exists that is capable of projecting a 3D object into an open air space, especially on the scale and distance as would be required and visible during broad daylight. All current forms of 3D projection are either clever tricks (projecting a 2D image on a half reflective glass, projecting a 2D rendering of a 3D object onto a contoured surface, etc), require a voumetric medium (fog, smoke, etc) or a use specially crafted reflective base and is only applicable on very small scales (like the size of a post stamp, and cannot move outside of the projection surface).

It seems to me you do not believe in the holograph theory, but would still like to keep it available to be able to counter eyewitness reports of a plane. If it is so ridiculous to assume that eyewitnesses wouldn't have seen a jetliner 1000ft above their heads if it was there, wouldn't it be equally ridiculous to assume they somehow missed seeing a jetliner hologram 1000ft above their heads? "This eyewitness didn't see a plane because there was no plane, but this eyewitness saw a plane because there was a hologram."

It doesn't work like that, you can't have it both ways and only use it when it is convenient to support your theory whilst ignoring it otherwise.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



None of the towers you named were designed in the same fashion. None. The WTC did not have the think inner core of concrete nor solid concrete in other parts of the structure. It was designed for open office space..as much as they could squeeze. Therefore, fewer inner columns and the truss design as used connected to the outer frame with the controversial viso-elasitc dampeners and you have something much different than the solid concrete building as you are showing. They are also not 100 stories high.
They were steel-framed skyscrapers, and that was the comparison that was made: How fire affects steel-framed skyscrapers.


WTC 7 was not high, but was a fefurbed building which again could have been poor engineering, design or construction but since the guy who owned it was set to collect there would be no investigation. There is as conspiracy but still, no explosives.....
The scientific method has concluded otherwise. If you can debunk the 10 pieces of evidence used to support the prediction that the buildings collapse woulde exhibit characteristics of a controlled demolition, maybe you'll at the very least get your foot in the door. But babbling on about how the buildings aren't constructed the exact same way is getting you nowhere.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Your photoshopping question just shows your ignorance... go inform yourself.



No, YOU educate yourself.

If you look at one of the towers, you see the top part tilted as it falls. The tilt, means the center of gravity is no longer centered to the building ... it cannot fall the way it did. It shoul be obvious ... and inner parts of these buildings, are the strongest columns ... the center of gravity on the top part, that is crushing the lower flors is no longer on the top of this column, but on the side of it and would bend it and not crush it. This isn't rocket science, it's simple newtonian law. There has to be something really wrong, with the sort of mind that does not question such acts.

We don't give a goddamn about washington, or the pentagon. You are trying to say, that an uneducated baffoon, armed with a boxcutter, who can't even fly a chessna flew this plane in a curving downward loop and ended up level with the ground, like a trained professional military pilot? That sure as hell, sounds like a trained professional military pilot to me ... or otherwise, I suggest you go up there and repeat the feat yourself. You sound like a pretty uneducated baffoon yourself, so you should have no problem repeating this simple task ... right?

Perhaps one of the towers, could have fallen in a controlled manner ... randomly ... but three? No. Saying that this column or that column, collapsed, it stupidity. The structure is built to hold up this weight. Even if one floor collapsed, or even two .. or even three, it would not and it could not, cause the whole building to collapse. If it could, the building is at fault ... because each and every beam should be constructed to hold up that particular weight, and then that mass be multiplied by several factors, for the real life scenario. NOTHING is left to chance, NOTHING. It is known, that such geometry must be used, because nature has a way of surprising you ... but nature will NEVER surprise you in a CONTROLLED MANNER. Not a chance in your life ...

And the most important issue, trillions of dollars have vanished. The world economy is in collapse ... and, unless you are totally bereft of an IQ, you will understand that you should start looking better at these issues, before it's too late. And why don't you do that? Are you on the thieves payroll or something? is this your job, to protect the thieves? You don't care about your fellow americans? you don't care that people are unemployed all over the country? All over the world? You don't care, that the money earned by our fathers, that were put in trust funds to take care of the ealderly ... has vanished? not just in America, but in all the western world? Are you daft?

You know why the Germans were hanged at Nurnberg? Because they didn't question their superiors ... and if you don't have the aptitude to do just that, question them ... then that is god damn UN AMERICAN, if anything ever is.

There is nothing in the UNIVERSE that can make these things happen the way they did. Everyone knew, there were two buildings protected 24/7 from air ... the white house, and the UN building. But, just out of thin air ... multiple planes are hijacked and put off course, towards both without a fighter interceptor coming close. And fifteen minutes, after the first tower is hit ... there is no reaction. Why? Because the military was having a national "training" session, that involved PRECISELY this kind of act?

There has to be something serious wrong, not to ask questions and make heads fly ...

And then, on top of everything else ... you have a news reporter on the street. Talking to a bystander, who is feeding the newsman with what is occurring, as it occurs ... with techincal detailed information, as to how it is done????????

And later you find out, that 9 months prior to the buildings collapse, there is a maintenance job, that does not allow the public to see what is being maintained?

And you still don't react? what is your IQ? Are you GW personal secretary? or D Cheney's personal secretary? Their personal integrity is more important, than the welfare of the people of the United States?

To not question these events, is treason.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


The fact that they are designed in a different matter is very relevant. In using your scientific method, during testing and research, you would need to find the same design and construction, not similar, to produce accurate results. It was a new type of design and one that has been modified upon. The system can be constructed using steel, concrete, or composite construction (the discrete use of both steel and concrete). The WTC was not a composite but a framed tube. A trussed tube is more than likely what you are looking at that also has concrete outer bearing walls and columns.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The scientific method has concluded otherwise. If you can debunk the 10 pieces of evidence used to support the prediction that the buildings collapse woulde exhibit characteristics of a controlled demolition, maybe you'll at the very least get your foot in the door. But babbling on about how the buildings aren't constructed the exact same way is getting you nowhere.


Please stop hiding behind your gross perversion of the scientific method. You have conducted no experiments that can be independently replicated and verified. You have not tested your hypothesis by trying to disprove it. You have not analyzed your results and formed conclusions

You linked to secondary and tertiary research, you 'tested' your hypothesis by picking and choosing data that confirmed it, and you analyzed your preformed conclusion to determine the results. This is not the scientific method, as their is nothing scientific about what you have done in your original post.

There is nothing wrong with providing articles and resources that support your theory, but trying to elevate it under the guise of the 'scientific method' is a disservice to the validity of some of the research you have presented.

Also, due to the chaotic nature of fire and the many variables present in a buildings construction, you cannot use case studies of other burning buildings to conclusively rule anything out. Even two buildings built to the exact same specs and set on fire at the same location would burn very differently. It can provide some good insight as to what would potentially happen, but on its own doesn't prove anything.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I really would like to know, and I registered just to ask this question. What purpose dose it serve to believe your government is out to get you? How is it practical to be paranoid and always out in left field? What do you gain even if your right, the most you can do about it is post "scientific" data on a conspiracy website, then what, what’s next pinky how shall we convince the world, and save the world? I’m sorry but if the idea isn’t practical then I believe it should be thrown out, or atleast put on the back burner. Why hold an ideology of paranoid conspiracies that will never be accepted by the mainstream there for changing nothing. You have no means to an end you offer no solution and quiet frankly there is no solution because the ideas are beyond fringe therefore they are not practical to your everyday life and only serve to devalue your credibility whether right or wrong this is true.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
That entire OP has been disproved time and time again. I don't know why people can't let it go that there is no conspiracy involving the September 11th TERRORIST attacks.


First off, the difference between those burning buildings that you showed and the twin towers are that both of the towers were hit by gigantic airplanes going 400-500 mph. That along with the fire is what made the WTC's collapse. As far as the explosions heard in the towers, what did you expect there would be in a raging inferno like that? There are so many possibilities for the sounds of the explosions that I can't even list them all.


Secondly, when people discuss WT7 they always conveniently leave out facts like firefighters reporting that 1/3 of the building was missing, and the fact that there was a gas line in WT7 that exploded. If you actually research things instead of blindly following conspiracies you would know this.


I guess you think that some demolition team snuck into all 3 buildings that collapsed, planted explosives without being seen, and they payed off the FBI, CIA, NYPD, NYFD, WTC employees, and anyone else involved so no one would tell the truth? It simply didn't happen. Terrorists attacked the buildings and they collapsed due to their gravity, fire, and their support being destroyed. But of course, everyone on this site became a physics expert and an engineer the second those towers collapsed.

I'd be stupid to think that we know the entire story about what happened on September 11th, but the bomb theory is just too far out there to be true.


www.911myths.com...

www.loosechangeguide.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

None of the towers you named were designed in the same fashion. None.The WTC did not have the think inner core of concrete nor solid concrete in other parts of the structure.



It is precisely the fact, that it had steel inner columns, and not concrete, that is the center of issue here. The steel in question is concentrated on the center of the building, which is what actually is holding up the building. Even if you have floors collapsing, they are built to hold several times the weight. Meaning, that even a building falling two or three stories would not break the structure. Which is precisely why a controlled demolition needs continuous explosives to bring down such structures. It's not enough to just explode the lowest parts, except on concrete buildings ... because the concrete will break ... but the steel will bend and not crumble to pieces .. unless, unless there is some substance that "melts" the columns, and the heat on the upper floors is not enough to melt the sustaining columns at lower floors.

It's as simple as that ... your arguement is totally bogus.




top topics



 
283
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join