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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 12
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


could you show me a video of a tower collapsing straight down that wasn't a demolition? we have a small part of the tower surviving all the way down through the path of most resistance, while the larger undamaged part made of the same material is completely destroyed.

small thing hits big thing, big thing wins. always. assuming same material.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


no see my post



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


small thing hits big thing, big thing wins. always. assuming same material.


So if the towers were controlled demolition, Then the explosives would have to have more mass than the towers ?

Is that why they used 8.5 kilo tons of explosives ?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


there have been no towers to my knowledge that have been brought down that weren't a demo.

And no, you can't say that's proof, because every tower has a style, and no style like the twin towers has ever really burned to my knowledge.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   


could you show me a video of a tower collapsing straight down that wasn't a demolition?


There should be plenty, since according to some, buildings collapse symmetrically because they are designed symmetrically.

Which reminds me: I expect The Leaning Tower of Pisa to magically lean back and collapse symmetrically straight down one day because it too is of symmetrical design, albeit broken symmetry.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlord
Not sure if this makes a difference but, i see people using the phrase TNT and i was under the impression that they used something called nano-thermite? At least i believe that is what they found in the rubble, military grade nano-thermite.


To answer your question, nano-thermite is a form of thermite that is theorized by Alex Jones. He analyzed red paint fragments from the dust and determined that there were traces of microscopic aluminum and iron-oxide (rust). From these observations, he determined individually that these were unreacted traces of a new militarized form of thermite.

In my opinion, there is not enough proof that this thermite was used, based on simply the presence of the two metals, but it's not for me to decide.

As for the current debate, I don't know what kind of explosive is being debated. It still doesn't cover the fact that there were no explosions before the collapse started. No matter what, in every demolition, the explosions have to begin before the building collapses, and I've never seen proof that it is even possible to detonate explosives in sequence during a collapse along a collapse path. It seems like there is too much risk for the explosives to get destroyed or severed by the debris, and then the evidence would be found during rescue efforts. But hey, maybe I'm the crazy one, thinking explosives don't make sense.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


could you show me a video of a tower collapsing straight down that wasn't a demolition?


There should be plenty, since according to some, buildings collapse symmetrically because they are designed symmetrically.

Which reminds me: I expect The Leaning Tower of Pisa to magically lean back and collapse symmetrically straight down one day because it too is of symmetrical design, albeit broken symmetry.


You know you're talking ridiculous, because that is nowhere near what anyone claims. The towers collapsed the way they did because they had a unique design. Get your counter-argument straight if you're going to try to belittle it.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Best. Troll. Ever!! Good job hooper, once again you spit in the face of humanity.

Its physics and doesnt require intelligence or consciousness. You know this. Why are you trolling here?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Explosions and collisions are two different things. Quit your trolling



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I tell ya what. Build a 25 foot tower of wood in your back yard. Use very small nails so that when pressure is applied those nails give way.

Then dream up a conspiracy theory to show why aliens or the government made your tower fall.

No other tower in the world was constructed like the TT's. Look at how it wa constructed, there is enough footage out there. You tell me if your apartment would survive with heat applied to floor to wall connections like that.

.... No your right, it was aliens.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Explosions and collisions are two different things. Quit your trolling


Oh really ? An explosion is not a collision ? F=MA

Tell me truther troll how do you think explosives work, are the magic ?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Explosions and collisions are two different things. Quit your trolling


Oh really ? An explosion is not a collision ? F=MA

Tell me truther troll how do you think explosives work, are the magic ?


Avoid the ad hominem of the word troll. It can only be used to inflame tempers.

Anyway, both the collision and the explosion "did" technically cause different types of damage. One broke columns and damaged floors, while the other sent shockwaves through the floors blowing off fireproofing and blowing out the elevators.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


errr...i never said that. you do realize demolitions take place using explosives, right? unless you're arguing that the twin towers were impervious to demolition, then your argument doesn't make sense. maybe you missed my whole molten steel color/temperature argument? something had to raise the energy level of the massive amount of steel in the towers to the melting point, and it sure wasn't carpet, desks, or jet fuel. so what caused it? nothing in the OS can account for it.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by waypastvne
 


errr...i never said that. you do realize demolitions take place using explosives, right? unless you're arguing that the twin towers were impervious to demolition, then your argument doesn't make sense. maybe you missed my whole molten steel color/temperature argument? something had to raise the energy level of the massive amount of steel in the towers to the melting point, and it sure wasn't carpet, desks, or jet fuel. so what caused it? nothing in the OS can account for it.


Red hot is not quite melting. The material seen dripping from the tower cannot be conclusively proven to be steel, and neither can a lot of what was witnessed. There were a lot of metals present in the towers.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


there have been no towers to my knowledge that have been brought down that weren't a demo.

And no, you can't say that's proof, because every tower has a style, and no style like the twin towers has ever really burned to my knowledge.




I see no reason why the structure would not collapse straight down.


this is also not evidence. little thing never destroys big thing while remaining intact. drop one concrete block ten feet up on to 9 other stacked concrete blocks and tell me which one wins. then come back and tell me why the same didn't happen to the twin towers.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
this is also not evidence. little thing never destroys big thing while remaining intact. drop one concrete block ten feet up on to 9 other stacked concrete blocks and tell me which one wins. then come back and tell me why the same didn't happen to the twin towers.


Not sure why this needs repeated, but the towers are in no way similar to a block-on-block collapse scenario. This is why you reject the idea of a verinage style collapse. There is acceleration space between every floor of the towers, and they were built extremely hollow with minimal concrete reinforcement.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by daggyz
 


There's always this argument that the towers were designed special like and that's why they 'collapsed'. Always.

But really, the towers were not built like the French Demo concrete slab pancake special buildings, no? No.

They are like on the other end of the scale it seems to me. The whole tube within a tube thing.

Now, is the 'tube within a tube' idea more or less likely to collapse than the standard steel and concrete floor slab construction? I'm asking.

Why? Because it always seems that whenever anyone uses the line and thinking 'oh the towers were special constructions that's why they collapsed (so easily) and like they did' they just assume (I think) that special means weaker than standard slab concrete and steel construction.

But is that really the case?

I don't know about either Jones in the previously posted video but I agree with one of them that even if the floor bolts gave way there still would be some kind of vertical core still standing. As well, there's a clip on the A&E site of guy's calculations of what kind of energy was needed to throw the massive wall sections outward to the distance achieved by them and it's very persuasive...

A tube within a tube, like I don't know, like putting a flag pole or a mast inside a lighthouse and then building floors at intervals... I sure wouldn't want to be some 300 foot guy bending over to squash that construction with my hand from the top down! Would any of you?! I call OUCH.

Yes the towers were uniquely designed but does that really mean they were more prone to collapse the way they did because of it? Really?

Personally I think no. And the fact that there was no remaining core to speak of and the heavy exterior wall sections of the outer 'tube' were ejected like they were and to the distance some of them were tells me those towers may have been stronger and that that was of course factored in beforehand.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


true story. red hot isn't melting, orange-yellow is.




now, where was our handy dandy color to temperature graphic? oh, there it is!


1371 C is the top color. your argument is ill conceived and invalid. honestly. you obviously have an agenda, anyone calling the color of the metal in the two above images "red" is either color blind, or wish to paint the issue in a darker color =P


The material seen dripping from the tower cannot be conclusively proven to be steel

you must be hard of reading, i've said time and again that all metals, and pretty much everything, glows the same color at the same temperature. from the color that metal glows, we can infer that the temperatures to melt steel were present, and therefore the OS is bunk.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


i was merely trying to demonstrate the simple physical principle that when a small object and a much larger object collide (being made of the same material) the small object will be destroyed.

if you can't understand this, there is no helping you. i wasn't actually picturing solid concrete blocks either, but these:

you would agree they're mostly hollow, right?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Varemia
 


true story. red hot isn't melting, orange-yellow is.




now, where was our handy dandy color to temperature graphic? oh, there it is!


1371 C is the top color. your argument is ill conceived and invalid. honestly. you obviously have an agenda, anyone calling the color of the metal in the two above images "red" is either color blind, or wish to paint the issue in a darker color =P


I remember reading something about the color being brighter when impurities are mixed into the metal.

Here's a source for at least lower melting points due to impurities:

www.mnstate.edu...

I guess here's a nice long page addressing molten metal specifically on 9/11:

www.debunking911.com...

Edit: after some reading, it is not that the color is bright, but color will certainly fluctuate due to impurities, and things such as wood in the mix with aluminum could cause it to turn a bright orange. Plus, if you look carefully at the video of the liquid metal dropping from the tower, it appears to glisten silvery on its way down. That is a very aluminum thing to do.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join