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: 47
34
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne
 


dude , dont waste my time

2nd


Stop pissing on the victims graves.




posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne
 


dude , dont waste my time

2nd


Stop pissing on the victims graves.





Stop the crocodile tears.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne
 


dude , dont waste my time

2nd


Stop pissing on the victims graves.


yup , keep posting like that and your gonna see that old fella telling you your banned.
2nd



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

I have looked at how the towers were built and they were exactly this strong:

This is the part of your blueprints you should be looking at Truther.


You have no idea how strong that connection is from a photo, if you think you do then you are delusional.

Regardless though as has been explain ad nauseam, failure of the truss connections does not match what we saw happen.

If the trusses failed, why did the antenna drop before the floors did? The antenna was on top of the hat truss, which was the top of the core. If the floors failed the core should not have moved at all, especially first.



And tilt as the core crumbled under neath it...



Yeah they build a massive supper strong core, and then fail to attach the floors with significant holding force? Let's not bother with facts, let's just make up stories that make us all feel better.




edit on 10/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If the trusses failed, why did the antenna drop before the floors did? The antenna was on top of the hat truss, which was the top of the core. If the floors failed the core should not have moved at all, especially first.



The south wall failed first not the core.

The antenna is leaning to the South.

4put.ru...
4put.ru...
4put.ru...
4put.ru...
4put.ru...



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


so why did the core fail ?
2nd



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Too bad the dust so thoroughly obscured the collapse sequence.

How could so much dust be exploding from the tops of the buildings at the very beginning of the collapse?



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


1) Damage from plane impact
2) Weakening of steel from fire
3) Uneven redistribution of loads
4) Read NIST for more information



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


1) Damage from plane impact
2) Weakening of steel from fire
3) Uneven redistribution of loads
4) Read NIST for more information




1) Damage to core from plane impact .... MINIMUM
2) Weakening of steel from fire ...............IMPOSSIBLE
3) Uneven redistribution of loads ............DONT BE FOOLISH
4) Read NIST for more information ........ *sigh*


NIST missed out alot of evidence and openly admitted they didnt even look for evidence of explosives.
The steel was destroyed so no real investigation could take place .. and thats a crime too.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
The south wall failed first not the core.

The antenna is leaning to the South.


The antenna is attached to the CORE not the south wall. The antenna drops BEFORE any of the walls move.

The antenna leans AFTER the floors started collapsing.

So no, wrong again.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ANOK
 


Too bad the dust so thoroughly obscured the collapse sequence.

How could so much dust be exploding from the tops of the buildings at the very beginning of the collapse?


Dust doesn't obscure the antenna moving before the rest of the building.

No there couldn't be dust, so is there a logical explanation? Of course there is, smoke from the fire


Watch the videos more closely, and pay attention to detail. All you are looking for are lame excuses to dismiss the obvious.



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





Dust doesn't obscure the antenna moving before the rest of the building. No there couldn't be dust, so is there a logical explanation? Of course there is, smoke from the fire Watch the videos more closely, and pay attention to detail.

All you are looking for are lame excuses to dismiss the obvious.


It should be obvious then that the core which was holding the antenna must have been blown first, as would occur with any demolition.

The dust I was referring to was that which cascaded down as soon as the top section collapsed. It seems like an inordinately huge amount.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ANOK
 





Dust doesn't obscure the antenna moving before the rest of the building. No there couldn't be dust, so is there a logical explanation? Of course there is, smoke from the fire Watch the videos more closely, and pay attention to detail.

All you are looking for are lame excuses to dismiss the obvious.


Its also obvious that on the N Tower the plane hit mid elevation and high up were the core steel was thinner !


The dust I was referring to was that which cascaded down as soon as the top section collapsed. It seems like an inordinately huge amount.


Its also obvious that on the N Tower the plane hit mid elevation and high up were the core steel was thinner !
edit on 23-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Its also obvious that on the N Tower the plane hit mid elevation and high up were the core steel was thinner !
edit on 23-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


All the steel was thinner at that level. Are you saying the jet damaged so many core columns they all collapsed at once?


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



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Its also obvious that on the N Tower the plane hit mid elevation and high up were the core steel was thinner !
edit on 23-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


All the steel was thinner at that level. Are you saying the jet damaged so many core columns they all collapsed at once?


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


They dont have to all collpase at once, as steel fails loads are redistributed but eventually when the steel thats left can no longer support the total load on it that will then give way what would you think, why it all collapsed at once!!!

You could not see inside neither could I or anyone else but you even see evidence for the same thing in wtc 7

Watch this video from architects for the truth (
) some so called engineers claim on this video wtc 7 falls in 7 seconds watch from 2:34.



You see the penthouse as they call it on the top left caves in see when the actual collapse is complete from that point.

Now most truther sites show you the view from street level but from higher up you see the collapse took a lot longer than stated!

Now the point that the Penthouse collapse started is the first direct evidence we see but for how long had steelwork been failing inside that we couldn't see


Thats the trouble on the net people with no experience of a subject taking about a subject.

30+ years in construction often on site in a technical role. When I first left school I worked in the design/drawing office for a structural steel company. So I DO have a fair idea what I am talking about.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


You do know how much sense they talk right ? they ran rings around the NIST report.
2nd
edit on 23-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





30+ years in construction often on site in a technical role. When I first left school I worked in the design/drawing office for a structural steel company. So I DO have a fair idea what I am talking about.


I have another thread where I go over how the military has controlled the media for generations.
The Media Are the Military


One of the source documents is "Propaganda Techniques", from the US Army. Your sentence above reminded me of one of the four factors listed for the "Official Sanction" section from their PSYOP field manual. "Accomplishment", that's the one...


Official Sanction. The testimonial authority must have given the endorsement or be clearly on record as having approved the attributed idea, concept, action, or belief.

Four factors are involved:

Accomplishment. People have confidence in an authority who has demonstrated outstanding ability and proficiency in his field.This accomplishment should be related to the subject of the testimonial.

Identification with the target. People have greater confidence in an authority with whom they have a common bond. For example, the soldier more readily trusts an officer with whom he has undergone similar arduous experiences than a civilian authority on military subjects.

Position of authority. The official position of authority may instill confidence in the testimony; i.e., head of state, division commander, etc.

Inanimate objects. Inanimate objects may be used in the testimonial device. In such cases, the propagandist seeks to transfer physical attributes of an inanimate object to the message. The Rock of Gibraltar, for example, is a type of inanimate object associated with steadfast strength.


www.constitution.org...



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Well since I live in the UK I dont really give two flying F****S about the above


Thats another truther tactic, if it looks like someone may know what they are talking about they must have official connections or be a disinfo agent


Sorry but you are wrong only here to try and educate after 30+ yrs of doing something when you see people on the net butcher a subject you work with you want to put things right!!!

Much like my comments on the Apollo hoax threads re photographic issuses as that has been a hobby for just as long!



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by septic
 


Well since I live in the UK I dont really give two flying F****S about the above




that's not what I'm gathering




Thats another truther tactic, if it looks like someone may know what they are talking about they must have official connections or be a disinfo agent



Your words, not mine. Ever since I read the PSYOPS field manual I notice the tactics everywhere. I do not assume everyone has studied the same manual, only that most people often use the tactics mentioned in the manual. If one methodically attempts to avoid those tactics when arguing one's own point, it becomes apparent how sound one's argument really is.



Sorry but you are wrong only here to try and educate after 30+ yrs of doing something when you see people on the net butcher a subject you work with you want to put things right!!!



I have no idea what you're talking about, and you could be a 12 year old girl on her Barbie laptop for all I know.



Much like my comments on the Apollo hoax threads re photographic issuses as that has been a hobby for just as long!


Transfer. This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.
Source



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


In WTC 1 the antenna dropped first , indicating the core was effected before the collapse.
2nd.


I just mentioned the core could have initiated the collapse. There were parts of it that had no support.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join