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: 24
34
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
has dr. judy wood been mentioned in this thread yet?

www.drjudywood.com...

or hurricane erin?

drjudywood.com...

anomolies:

www.drjudywood.com...
edit on 20-9-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)


It seems that most people here discussing 9/11 dont even want to look at Dr Judy Wood' theories ???

I've just finished here book "Where Did The Towers Go" and I advise everybody to do the same.

Explosives in the buildings DONT turn 500,000 tons of concrete and steel to DUST.




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by downunderET

Explosives in the buildings DONT turn 500,000 tons of concrete and steel to DUST.


Look, once again this all may be true, but it just makes it that much more difficult to even get people to see the basics of why the collapses could not be as we're told, and that that indicates a cover up of some kind.

If you want to discuss Judy Wood, start a thread and stop distracting this one please. In fact I;m sure there a hundred of threads that already do...

ask.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by downunderET

Explosives in the buildings DONT turn 500,000 tons of concrete and steel to DUST.


Look, once again this all may be true, but it just makes it that much more difficult to even get people to see the basics of why the collapses could not be as we're told, and that that indicates a cover up of some kind.

If you want to discuss Judy Wood, start a thread and stop distracting this one please. In fact I;m sure there a hundred of threads that already do...

ask.abovetopsecret.com...


A little quick on the trigger there Tex.

You say "this all may be true", eh "maybe", well the TRUTH is staring you in the face.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Oh come on Anok tell us how the towers turned to dust. We want to know. Be sure and use lots of Truther Physics.
I love Truther Physics



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Could you explain how the building turned to dust according to the physics of the OS for me please.

reply to post by ANOK
 


In your other post is the answer 'the one with the smaller mass with feel the most force' because I've been trying to study so I can keep up with the thread.


edit on 20-9-2011 by yyyyyyyyyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Could you explain how the building turned to dust according to the physics of the OS for me please.


Fireproofing (the stuff that actually does turn to dust very easily) turned to dust.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Thanks for the reply, if what you say is true would that not also apply to CD? By that I mean fireproofing would be the answer for both the OS and CD in this case.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by downunderET

Explosives in the buildings DONT turn 500,000 tons of concrete and steel to DUST.


Look, once again this all may be true, but it just makes it that much more difficult to even get people to see the basics of why the collapses could not be as we're told, and that that indicates a cover up of some kind.

If you want to discuss Judy Wood, start a thread and stop distracting this one please. In fact I;m sure there a hundred of threads that already do...

ask.abovetopsecret.com...


ok, you have a point, but that's just what you want to do. i can bring up judy wood and it not be off topic, because she has the only theory on 9/11 that can be considered truth or what the "truthers" should be behind. she claims outside energy was introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did. and i'm relating her research to this thread because it's topical. i don't really care if an OSer believes me or not, because they're OSers, and that's their disservice to humanity, and i'm not worried about how it sounds to other people or how ridiculous it sounds.
i would love to hear a truther or OSer try to explain even a few of her index of anomolies about 9/11.

how is there even a question that jet fuel, which almost entirely was combusted and expended and dissolved into the air upon the initial impact explosion turned one million tons of material into dust in 8 seconds? it's just inherently BS and you are scared out of your mind to think otherwise about the OS. how do the upper floors "dustefy"? despite that weight, that makes no sense the rest of the building desentigrated due to inertia. if what happened on 9/11 were true, martial artists who destroy wood or stone planks would break through planks easier and easier as they chop downwards. don't even kid yourself that there wasn't an outside energy responsible for turning one million pounds of material into super fine dust due to jet fuel that was almost completely vaporized in the intial explosion.

don't coddle them and waste a thread to slowly show them, just show them. there is no question outside energy besides already-combusted and a few slicks of burnt jet fuel destroyed three buildings left huge scars in other buildings, flipped cars, levitated, moved cars (very far removed from the building footprints), half of another WTC, and left not even a floor of material in their footprints.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK
 


Oh come on Anok tell us how the towers turned to dust. We want to know. Be sure and use lots of Truther Physics.
I love Truther Physics


First off when did I say 'the towers turned to dust'?

But the problem is there are no floors stacked up in the footprints of the towers, as there should be for your claims to be true. You can't show the floors, you can't account for the floors.

So if the floors are not in the footprint post collapse, then the only logical conclusion is they were lost during the collapse. There is no other alternative.

And once again for the billionth time, the point you are trying so desperately to distract away from, if you are losing mass during the collapse then you are losing mass you need to cause other floors connections to fail. Let alone move all the debris outside of the footprints.


edit on 9/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Fireproofing (the stuff that actually does turn to dust very easily) turned to dust.


Fireproofing is not going to make this much dust...



How much fireproofing do you think was in those towers?





And if you are observant it's not only 'dust', it is full of larger chunks of debris, including concrete floors, unless you can show me otherwise i.e. concrete and steel panned floors stacked up in the footprints.


edit on 9/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Could you explain how the building turned to dust according to the physics of the OS for me please.


Fireproofing (the stuff that actually does turn to dust very easily) turned to dust.


even if literally every object in all the WTC's were fireproofed, and all of it turned to dust in the collapses, that still doesn't account for everything else it was covering also somehow turning to dust. or, where is all the material that the fireproofing was keeping so safe?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
This should answer a lot of questions about the manner of collapse. Don't stop reading at the beginning. Go through the whole page. Yes, the whole page. Then come back and say it's bunk, but not before:

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If there is anything specific that relates to the discussion please point it out.

We are debating you, not someone eles's work through you, OK?

That's just a lazy.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your ignorance is not an argument. If you do not understand how the average resistance can be lower than the gravitational force, then you should study the physics. Try to do some actual calculations. I have already given some rather easy to grasp explanations in the thread. Start there.


Yes, resistance is lower than the gravitational force (when something starts to fall). The top section was effected by both, resistance and the gravitational down force.

Resistance is what the top section encountered from a stationary position and all the way to the ground. At stationary (before the top section falls), the resistance of the bottom section is greater than the down force (gravity) working on the top section. The resistance was greater than gravity working on the top section until the top section of the building started to move down words.

The issue is that the top section fell like there was no resistance working against gravity. Both towers fell down in its own footprint symmetrically.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

How much fireproofing do you think was in those towers?



The fire proofing averaged over 1.5" in thickness and covered three sides of the external columns, the spandrel plates, The core columns, the trusses, and the under side of the floors,

By volume that would be very close to the volume of the concrete.

The concrete had steel floor pans on one side and carpet or vinyl flooring on the other.

Here's that stack of pancakes again.




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Everybody forgets resistance; alot of it in a building that size!!



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 


If there is anything specific that relates to the discussion please point it out.

We are debating you, not someone eles's work through you, OK?

That's just a lazy.


No, we're not debating me, because I'm not an expert on the matter, nor do I have a magical suppository of knowledge. The link I gave you sums up how I understand things, and I don't see how the fact that someone else put it together makes it any less valid.

Are you seriously going to ignore/deny it without even reading it?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Can you please stop posting this idiotic image!



They are excavating the building from the sides, you can see the bottom of the basin there.

equapio.com...

What you can't see is any pancakes.What you are looking at are the basement floors, which for all you can tell from this image (and from what is known of the cleanup) may well be intact.







A little due diligence is in order.

letsrollforums.com...

The actual height of the above ground level debris is barely one story.

edit on 20-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Actually, if you count the sections here:

www.twintowersii.com...

You will notice that there is only a slight amount under the bottom that is viewable. That is the first floor up, and a lot of debris is in the basement.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Check out the Tesla-Hutchison Effect. "Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" by Judy Wood, Ph.D. www.drjudywood.com/tower
edit on 20-9-2011 by aurorandn56 because: (no reason given)







 
34
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join