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: 45
34
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 

youtu.be...
at 1:40 you can see the floors and walls going up as a unit. that's the only way it could be done to stay in a square footprint. Do you actually think they erected the core and outer skin with no floors. Buddy I hate to break it to you but you're wrong.




posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The floors are built in place as the structure is erected, it has to be that way for a number of reasons.

Arguing differently exposes a complete lack of experience or knowledge of construction principles and techniques.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Invisible ones, through which the shoreline is visible through the fog. Pull the other one.


What "fog"?


In the background, behind the buildings? I see a general haze, maybe call it mist....but, also land, and water....depending on which way the camera is pointing, we can compare to maps and find out what we are seeing, whether New York or New Jersey

That is a fabulous image, showing the Towers still under construction, and illustrating really how little steel was involved in their designs. (Yes, all the floors are there)....

So, if the claim is going to be maintained that somehow floors are "missing" in WTC 1 and WTC 2, then how to explain that building seen on the left, in the photo?? The sunlight shining through it is very similar to what's seen with the ETC Towers, still under construction.


Anyway, what a great find of photo evidence, for all of those who cannot fathom how the buildings could have collapsed from a combination of severe damage, and subsequent fires. Because, what is seen there is really the structural parts, the "skeleton" of the buildings in some sense. Everything else seen in the final result after construction was competed isn't structural in nature, just added-on components for the most part.






edit on Fri 21 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
The floors are built in place as the structure is erected, it has to be that way for a number of reasons.

Arguing differently exposes a complete lack of experience or knowledge of construction principles and techniques.



Your need to belittle concepts you are unaware of reflects poorly on you.

All the floors were not needed, as can be clearly seen in the images. Yamasaki was chosen because he would design buildings per the client's needs, and the needs of the PA appear to have been to build innovative buildings without all the floors.

He was a favorite of the Saudis and the US government among others, because he would do what other architects would not:


A building commissioned in 1951 by the Department of Defense was built without a sprinkler system, and then burned in a spectacular fire. That building, the U.S. Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, housed 38 million individual service records and 4,000 employees. When it was completed in 1956, the six-story concrete and aluminum behemoth was one of the twenty largest buildings in the world.



For instance, Yamasaki’s authorship of two Saudi Arabian airports and one Saudi Monetary Agency Head Office is long forgotten. In the mid-1970s, the Saudis waited three whole years for Yamasaki to wrap up work in lower Manhattan so that he could come and attend to their architectural needs. While the prestigious commission for the central bank and new airports might have gone to any number of architects, the Saudi government insisted on Yamasaki’s team.



It was an honor to have IBM, Consolidated Gas, the Defense Department, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as his clients, even if they wanted their buildings with no fire sprinklers, or in a no man’s land, or too tall. “Since they were the client,” he said of the Records Building in St. Louis, “we went along with their option.” Yamasaki’s firm was selected for the design of the World Trade Center precisely because he could be counted on to be agreeable, to accommodate the developer’s demands. It gave him ulcers, but Yamasaki made real the visions of America’s leaders—and left everyone else to suffer the consequences.


americancity.org...



edit on 22-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

Do you actually think they erected the core and outer skin with no floors.


What is it that prompts people to hear "no floors", where I say "not all the floors"? There's a difference between installing all the trusses but not all the floors as well.

Incidentally, when those planes cut through the buildings without even slowing down; they behaved as if they were cutting through air, rather than encountering multiple concrete floors. Can you point to the aircraft or any floors in the below image? Looks pretty empty to me.



Remember all those surprised comments about the lack of building contents in the debris pile?...no phones, no desks, no computers, no bodies...nothing but dust.

Source



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
. Do you have any proof to show the interiors were walled in yet? When were these photos taken and at what stage of completion were the towers? If you can't answer those questions stop bothering me.


Actually, that's the funny thing, according to a FOIA document regarding the tenants, most of the upper floors were empty for decades, and only became occupied in the last year or so before 911, however the claims were made in the 90's that by 1979, 10 percent still had not been leased...meaning 90 percent had been. The below image was taken in 1978...do they look like they're 90 percent occupied?



Here's a table of the first time occupants for many of the upper floors:


Source



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic
 



Invisible ones, through which the shoreline is visible through the fog. Pull the other one.


What "fog"?


In the background, behind the buildings? I see a general haze, maybe call it mist....but, also land, and water....depending on which way the camera is pointing, we can compare to maps and find out what we are seeing, whether New York or New Jersey

That is a fabulous image, showing the Towers still under construction, and illustrating really how little steel was involved in their designs. (Yes, all the floors are there)....

So, if the claim is going to be maintained that somehow floors are "missing" in WTC 1 and WTC 2, then how to explain that building seen on the left, in the photo?? The sunlight shining through it is very similar to what's seen with the ETC Towers, still under construction.


Anyway, what a great find of photo evidence, for all of those who cannot fathom how the buildings could have collapsed from a combination of severe damage, and subsequent fires. Because, what is seen there is really the structural parts, the "skeleton" of the buildings in some sense. Everything else seen in the final result after construction was competed isn't structural in nature, just added-on components for the most part.






edit on Fri 21 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


I believe you were also here stating in a resounding fashion that fires were not encountered in the buildings by firefighters...until at least when they arrived 70 some odd floors up...There were no fires below this point....so people would need to believe the thirty to forty floors ABOVE the damaged areas would be sufficient to serve to COLLAPSE ALL the floors beneath them...highly doubtful...
edit on 22-10-2011 by jeichelberg because: Misspelled *would and *believe



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


so you think because no one was leasing the space there were no actual floors there? Are you saying they installed floors later? This claim is truly insane.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


You seemed to have not understood the physics of "Potential Energy"...

...and gravity.

Please feel free to research online, for your education and enlightenment. It is not necessary to provide instruction to any of you here, in this thread.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

Do you actually think they erected the core and outer skin with no floors.


What is it that prompts people to hear "no floors", where I say "not all the floors"? There's a difference between installing all the trusses but not all the floors as well.

Incidentally, when those planes cut through the buildings without even slowing down; they behaved as if they were cutting through air, rather than encountering multiple concrete floors. Can you point to the aircraft or any floors in the below image? Looks pretty empty to me.



Remember all those surprised comments about the lack of building contents in the debris pile?...no phones, no desks, no computers, no bodies...nothing but dust.

Source





No plane? wow


Not all the floors? Which ones were missing? Did they ever appear later? Do you know how thick the concrete was in those floors? Would you really expect a jet flying that fast to slow down as it breached the outer skin? You really are living in lala land. And none of the crap you are talking about has anything to do with my point that it is absolutely possible for the buildings to fall the way they did on their own.

ps: what is holding up the skin columns that were sliced in half? Do you think that would have an effect on the structure making it unbalanced/unstable?
edit on 22-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I see you don't get out much, you're standing in the sunlight blinking.

So, no plane parts and no floors to point out in the gaping hole then?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 


so you think because no one was leasing the space there were no actual floors there? Are you saying they installed floors later? This claim is truly insane.


Truly insane? Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's kind of like the results achieved from all the hard-hitting research from the ATS folks. Nothing to show after ten years but different titles for the same tired topics.

Tell me, do you consider invading country after country and murdering hundreds of thousands to be insane? If not, our definitions differ.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 


so you think because no one was leasing the space there were no actual floors there? Are you saying they installed floors later? This claim is truly insane.


Truly insane? Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's kind of like the results achieved from all the hard-hitting research from the ATS folks. Nothing to show after ten years but different titles for the same tired topics.

Tell me, do you consider invading country after country and murdering hundreds of thousands to be insane? If not, our definitions differ.



I said the claim was insane; you could be perfectly normal about everything else in your life but thinking what you do about this is a little nutty. You don't see a plane or walls because they mutually destroyed one another. How did the outer columns get sliced in half. Why don't you like to talk about how they most likely added to the floors buckling or the core twisting? Maybe if you stick to tangible things that would have the most impact not just things you see or don't see in photographs?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 


so you think because no one was leasing the space there were no actual floors there? Are you saying they installed floors later? This claim is truly insane.


Truly insane? Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's kind of like the results achieved from all the hard-hitting research from the ATS folks. Nothing to show after ten years but different titles for the same tired topics.

Tell me, do you consider invading country after country and murdering hundreds of thousands to be insane? If not, our definitions differ.



I said the claim was insane; you could be perfectly normal about everything else in your life but thinking what you do about this is a little nutty. You don't see a plane or walls because they mutually destroyed one another. How did the outer columns get sliced in half. Why don't you like to talk about how they most likely added to the floors buckling or the core twisting? Maybe if you stick to tangible things that would have the most impact not just things you see or don't see in photographs?


sorry to butt in here dude ..... this isnt my arguement ... but how did the plane go straight through 2 WTC ? the nose popped out the other side untouched ...... either there was no resistance ......... or it wasnt a NORMAL plane right ? or am i missing something here ?
edit on 22-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: *nose* was nise




posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

Do you actually think they erected the core and outer skin with no floors.


What is it that prompts people to hear "no floors", where I say "not all the floors"? There's a difference between installing all the trusses but not all the floors as well.

Incidentally, when those planes cut through the buildings without even slowing down; they behaved as if they were cutting through air, rather than encountering multiple concrete floors. Can you point to the aircraft or any floors in the below image? Looks pretty empty to me.



Remember all those surprised comments about the lack of building contents in the debris pile?...no phones, no desks, no computers, no bodies...nothing but dust.

Source





... and notice the fires burning above and below the impact... Wait are you saying the impact zone had no floors? If that's true I'll bet the planes would have done even more damage to the core and possibly caused the towers to collapse sooner than they did. Or are you saying the upper section that fell had no floors? either way it's pretty nutty.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 


so you think because no one was leasing the space there were no actual floors there? Are you saying they installed floors later? This claim is truly insane.


Truly insane? Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It's kind of like the results achieved from all the hard-hitting research from the ATS folks. Nothing to show after ten years but different titles for the same tired topics.

Tell me, do you consider invading country after country and murdering hundreds of thousands to be insane? If not, our definitions differ.



I said the claim was insane; you could be perfectly normal about everything else in your life but thinking what you do about this is a little nutty. You don't see a plane or walls because they mutually destroyed one another. How did the outer columns get sliced in half. Why don't you like to talk about how they most likely added to the floors buckling or the core twisting? Maybe if you stick to tangible things that would have the most impact not just things you see or don't see in photographs?


sorry to butt in here dude ..... this isnt my arguement ... but how did the plane go straight through 2 WTC ? the nose popped out the other side untouched ...... either there was no resistance ......... or it wasnt a NORMAL plane right ? or am i missing something here ?
edit on 22-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: *nose* was nise



septic is trying to tell me there are missing sections of floors and... well I'm really not sure what else it is septic is trying to say.

why, what are you saying? holograms? rc drones? anything other than planes with passengers and you can save it. I'm not interested.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic
 



Invisible ones, through which the shoreline is visible through the fog. Pull the other one.


What "fog"?


In the background, behind the buildings? I see a general haze, maybe call it mist....but, also land, and water....depending on which way the camera is pointing, we can compare to maps and find out what we are seeing, whether New York or New Jersey

That is a fabulous image, showing the Towers still under construction, and illustrating really how little steel was involved in their designs. (Yes, all the floors are there)....

So, if the claim is going to be maintained that somehow floors are "missing" in WTC 1 and WTC 2, then how to explain that building seen on the left, in the photo?? The sunlight shining through it is very similar to what's seen with the ETC Towers, still under construction.


Anyway, what a great find of photo evidence, for all of those who cannot fathom how the buildings could have collapsed from a combination of severe damage, and subsequent fires. Because, what is seen there is really the structural parts, the "skeleton" of the buildings in some sense. Everything else seen in the final result after construction was competed isn't structural in nature, just added-on components for the most part.






edit on Fri 21 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


I believe you were also here stating in a resounding fashion that fires were not encountered in the buildings by firefighters...until at least when they arrived 70 some odd floors up...There were no fires below this point....so people would need to believe the thirty to forty floors ABOVE the damaged areas would be sufficient to serve to COLLAPSE ALL the floors beneath them...highly doubtful...
edit on 22-10-2011 by jeichelberg because: Misspelled *would and *believe


You're figuring floor versus floor but what about the upper section of core columns and the four outer walls comprised of very heavy steel columns and whatnot that acted as axes, sledgehammers, levers to shred everything they fell on and those things in turn destroyed other things on the way down? what about all that? You can't look at this as two smooth blocks landing perfectly flat and level evenly across the surfaces. It wasn't like that because of the truss design which was integral to keeping the outer skin from buckling. When the skin and core were breached it was no better than the Titanic (I know I have used that analogy before but I think it is appropriate to use it again) and I bet even without the fires they would've fell over time.

People who argue floor versus floor don't understand how the towers were built.
edit on 22-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


nah actually ive got a fair idea of what happened without including ninjas and death rays or even mini nukes
those dudes do the dead no justice ..... im talking possibility , by thinking like MAN.

i`ll break it down for yall ..... gimme 2 mins

edit on 22-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Ok so heres what i think has been blown out of proportion ......

In the video below (name of vid and posts are irrelivent , and silly , just using it for footage here
)
you can clearly see the nose of the plane leaving the other side of the tower - in tact - and it would appear - un affected - play it from 0:15 seconds .... youll see it , first your going to see the "explosions" , now the uploader of this video claims theres a problem with the shadows yada yada , i like to use this "grey" shot as evidence of another energy ..... look at the wall blasting away on its path through ...... thats a strong wing

Ok ..... it quickly zips to a side shot of the nose popping out of the tower ...... people , please , if you can explain how this is perfectly normal , and very possible , i`d like to hear it.

www.youtube.com...

Now , you can clearly see the nose is untouched , ....... birds bust these things , the nose should have disintegrated on impact , but for some reason , its blasted through one outer wall , through various bits of steel work and stud walls etc inside the building then bam ... slammed out the other side without a scratch.

As the plane goes into the tower there is this flash that not many people seem to know much about, watch this from 1:58 ........ www.youtube.com...

To be honest im not entirely sure but .....
....... i think this may be some kind of charge going off , maybe even a series of charges inside the tower , or just one larger one , this could be breaching the the first wall ...... as the plane is entering the hole charges are knocking the columns out along a straight path for the plane to just carry on through to the other side of the tower ... the explosions weakening the rear wall for the nose to breach (maybe not intentionally but it breached)

Theres that or .... this wasnt a normal flight ..... the whole plane was re-enforced and loaded with explosives rigged to a detonator which was in the hands of one of the men in one of those helicopters ....
The plane its self was remote control (explaining the "extra parts" on the bottom of the plane ) ... the same kind of sequence was applied , as the plane was about to hit the wall , it was breached , then a crazy series of explosives went of in a heart beat , blowing the steel out of the way knocking all the walls out , this is where the re enfoced front end (atleast) would come into it , as the plane is flying through the debri from the explosions its just bouncing off the nose .... as the explosions move the steel it helps weaken the rear wall and the re-enforced front end pushes through the wall .... once the man in the chopper sees the nose has popped out he just detonates for the sake of "the mission" ......

We dont see the wings snapping off , we dont see any part of the plane smash off or disintegrate on impact .... that should be enough to raise a few eyebrows ......
But the main thing that bugs me with the collapse is ...... the *topple* ..... i put this down to whatever was in THAT plane , the extra explosives in the plane actually damaged that corner , severely .

Now , before you say im another ,... mini nuke dude
...... let me ask you , how many scrap yards full of Boeings does the government have access to ? what kind of technologies do they have access to ? how many grade A experts do they have in their ranks ?

It wouldnt be that hard to plant thermite and other "explosives" throughout the structure , especially when the towers had been closed for maintenance , and marvin bush was greasing palms, they could take out the core columns , set them off at a professional rate , tying to use the smoke / dust cloud as cover for the explosives. Risky .... but this was a shock and awe tactic.
Many videos show charges going off during collapse , in and out of the smoke you can see them pretty clearly , would be glad to provide links if anyone is interested in seeing them..

FEMA was there the day before too , for a bio drill on the day after 911 , which was taking place at peir 92, which was their " command center " on 911 .... and they already had man power and equipment at the scene.

NORAD stood down ........


And ........ "pull it" and "pull out" are very different sayings ....... who agrees ?


Anyways ...... i`m sane compared to the nutters , atleast i sound borderline realistic. i think

edit on 22-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

edit on 23-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join