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

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 


That is nothing more than the crush down crush up hypothesis, that ignored the very laws we have been discussing.

This proves you wrong...



Nothing more has to be said.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I was having a think about all this 911 stuff logically since all discussions boil down to whether you believe they were blown up or not (there is no physical evidence left of demolition charges). It's all interpretation of how they fell etc.

So logically: There are two situations and only two:

1. It was a terrorist attack
2. It was an inside job.

Now getting right back to the initial "attack", the above 2 leads to:

1a - Terrorists on a suicide mission to fly planes into the towers
2a - Drone planes which means an inside job and huge conspiracy.
2b - Suicide mission by government agents........about as likely as the Tea party backing Obama!
2c - Forced suicide mission by somebody threatened by the government.

is 2c a possibility? If it was then the persons life cant be threatened it has to be their family. However, once the person was dead how would they know that the government (who are killing thousands of their own citizens) will be upstanding citizens and leave the persons family alive.......not a chance in hell. So this option is logically flawed.

Back to 1a. You cannot have a terrorist attack and then blow up your own building. Because this means the whole conspiracy is dependent on those terrorists doing what they threatened, successfully. The terrorists cannot be in the pocket of the government since that conflicts with the belief system that makes them go on a suicide mission. So if it was a terrorist attack then the towers collapsed due to the crash and the pentagon was hit by a plane.

We are now left with 2 possibilities:

1a - terrorist attack
2a - Drone planes.

That's it. The solution to the 911 conundrum boils down to ONE AND ONLY ONE condition:

Were the planes drones?

So fire away this is the only evidence that needs examining. Logs for the planes, family of those on the plane with evidence they were booked onto them or not etc etc. There will be a paper trail of either the real planes which were crashed by terrorists or the disappearance of planes (and passengers) to allow the drones to replace them on the flight path. Either way the paper trail will exist for purchased tickets, printed boarding passes, families waiting at the arrival gate etc etc.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
8.5 kt of TNT
. Thats very close to the bomb that exploded on Hiroshima, which was 12-15 kt. Who makes this stuff up?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
This is all just becoming really stupid...been reading all the crazy crap for years now. the structure was steel, the floors concrete, you weaken the support with the intense heat from burning jet fuel, the floor above comes down..and a "domino" effect happens... with every floor the force on the next floor increases exponentially... it don't take an engineer to figure it out. just a high school student with common sense.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
8.5 kt of TNT
. Thats very close to the bomb that exploded on Hiroshima, which was 12-15 kt.


Good point. In therms of modern explosives, at how much material are we looking at here, to reach the 8.5 figure or even 4.0 figure ?
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
How come nobody is factoring in the weight of the upper group of steel columns that never evaporated as they gained momentum?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I think the discussion between the 2 was about how much concrete was in the towers. So they are looking to extrapolate that number from the total weight.

Also in therms of modern explosives, at how much material are we looking at here, to reach the 8.5 KT figure or even 4.0 KT figure ?
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
If the buildings were rigged with explosives, how did the explosives not go off upon impact of the plane?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Non-experts arguing with non-experts. This is going nowhere fast.

Anomalous evidence (such as the "dustification" of material, the absence of large "chunks" of material, the absence of significant damage to the WTC "bathtub," seismic impact, toasted/flipped cars, size and duration of the dust cloud, etc.) CANNOT be explained by conventional controlled demolition. If you haven't read Dr. Judy Wood's book, "Where Did the Towers Go?" you will never understand what happened on 911.

Yes, obviously, energy must have been ADDED to the mix to account for the global collapse (and "dustification") of towers 1 and 2 and building 7. The damage done to building 6 cannot be explained by falling debris.

Demolition charges may explain SOME of what we see (and hear), but cannot explain the toasted car park, the absence of building artifacts and bodies, and the absence of "pancaked" floors.

It's not an either-or proposition. The buildings could have been "demo'd" (which explains the explsions) AND "dustified" by an outside source of energy (which explains the anomalies).



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
Non-experts arguing with non-experts. This is going nowhere fast.

Anomalous evidence (such as the "dustification" of material, the absence of large "chunks" of material, the absence of significant damage to the WTC "bathtub," seismic impact, toasted/flipped cars, size and duration of the dust cloud, etc.) CANNOT be explained by conventional controlled demolition. If you haven't read Dr. Judy Wood's book, "Where Did the Towers Go?" you will never understand what happened on 911.

Yes, obviously, energy must have been ADDED to the mix to account for the global collapse (and "dustification") of towers 1 and 2 and building 7. The damage done to building 6 cannot be explained by falling debris.

Demolition charges may explain SOME of what we see (and hear), but cannot explain the toasted car park, the absence of building artifacts and bodies, and the absence of "pancaked" floors.

It's not an either-or proposition. The buildings could have been "demo'd" (which explains the explsions) AND "dustified" by an outside source of energy (which explains the anomalies).


Actually, what has been argued is that energy doesn't have to be added to the mix, and it appears that one expert did show up, an engineer. He supports the official story of the towers' collapse.

Why can't the damage to building 6 be caused by falling debris? And what constitutes dustification? Why would only some of the material become "dustified?"

I think Judy Wood is using her imagination to come up with a science fiction weapon that would make a dust cloud out of a building. She neglects to remember that the building was on fire when it came down, and those fires didn't go out, so burning debris hit cars and buildings, setting them ablaze. She also neglects to understand the dynamics of the weight of the upper tower on the tower below it, resorting to a dustification theory in order to explain how gypsum and concrete could be crushed and blown into the air.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
In therms of modern explosives, at how much material are we looking at here, to reach the 8.5 KT figure or even 4.0 KT figure ?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building (if we ignore the ke). That is 9 times the weight of the buildings themselves. With so much weight, you don't even need to ignite the explosives, the building would collapse because it can't hold all that weight.

Or to give a short summary, your OP is total complete utter nonsense. One example of how truther sites spread lies and falsehoods, like we were discussing in the other thread.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The truthers seem like they have been competing over the last 10 years to come up with the most absurd explanation for what was nothing more than a plane crashing into a build, causing it collapse.

I have heard that:

1) TPTB rigged the buildings with explosives, and then flew planes into the buildings, which magically did not set off any of the explosives. Then, at a later time, they set off the explosives in a timed manner to bring the buildings down in a controlled manner. Also, thermite was involved, for some reason.
2) Wait, actually, those planes did not exist, they were CGI/holograms. The passengers were removed prior to take-off, and the phone calls brilliantly faked, because, afterall, phone calls at that height are not even possible.
3) Actually, not just the planes were fakes, so were the jumping-men. All CGI.
4) Actually, why stop there, probably no-one at all died, it was all fake.
5) No! It was SPACE-BEAMS!!!

I'm a little surprised it stopped there. Why haven't aliens been involved yet? Or have they?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
 



But for the twin towers the pressure did not stop at point of fracture, it increased each and every time the top floor driven down by the force of the upper floors impacted the stationary bottom floor held up by the remaining building.


By that logic, the bedrock that the twin towers were standing on should have been reduced to rubble about halfway through the building process.

reply to post by Cassius666
 



Good point. In therms of modern explosives, at how much material are we looking at here, to reach the 8.5 figure or even 4.0 figure ?


IT's pretty close the the weight of TNT, actually...

reply to post by -PLB-
 



The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building


Nope.... that's 8.5 *THOUSAND* tons of explosives.... not million.

Kilo = Thousand
Mega = Million

8.5 kilotons of TNT equivalent would weigh approximately 8.5 thousand tons, give or take 20%, depending upon the type of explosive (Assuming non nuclear, of course)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by WayfaringStranger
Non-experts arguing with non-experts. This is going nowhere fast.

Anomalous evidence (such as the "dustification" of material, the absence of large "chunks" of material, the absence of significant damage to the WTC "bathtub," seismic impact, toasted/flipped cars, size and duration of the dust cloud, etc.) CANNOT be explained by conventional controlled demolition. If you haven't read Dr. Judy Wood's book, "Where Did the Towers Go?" you will never understand what happened on 911.

Yes, obviously, energy must have been ADDED to the mix to account for the global collapse (and "dustification") of towers 1 and 2 and building 7. The damage done to building 6 cannot be explained by falling debris.

Demolition charges may explain SOME of what we see (and hear), but cannot explain the toasted car park, the absence of building artifacts and bodies, and the absence of "pancaked" floors.

It's not an either-or proposition. The buildings could have been "demo'd" (which explains the explsions) AND "dustified" by an outside source of energy (which explains the anomalies).


Actually, what has been argued is that energy doesn't have to be added to the mix, and it appears that one expert did show up, an engineer. He supports the official story of the towers' collapse.

Why can't the damage to building 6 be caused by falling debris? And what constitutes dustification? Why would only some of the material become "dustified?"

I think Judy Wood is using her imagination to come up with a science fiction weapon that would make a dust cloud out of a building. She neglects to remember that the building was on fire when it came down, and those fires didn't go out, so burning debris hit cars and buildings, setting them ablaze. She also neglects to understand the dynamics of the weight of the upper tower on the tower below it, resorting to a dustification theory in order to explain how gypsum and concrete could be crushed and blown into the air.


Anyone supporting the "official" story of the collapse is uninformed or a shill. The damage to building 6 (a gaping hole punched into the center with little debris at the bottom of the hole) was far too extensive to be explained by "falling debris."

Dr. Judy Wood did not fail to remember that the building was on fire. You could only say that if you hadn't read the book and considered her evidence. The "toasted car park" (not to mention the toasted cars under FDR Drive) was FAR removed from even the "official" range of falling debris. Neither did she "neglect to understand" the dynamics of the building. She is a PhD in materials engineering science, so I think she might be familiar with the dynamics of the upper tower. You are casting doubt on the science and integrity of someone you clearly know nothing about.

She is not using her "imagination", other than to form a hypothesis based on the evidence, just like ever other legitimate scientist on the planet. Do you believe the work of Nikola Tesla is "science fiction"? If you do, all I can say is, get educated. What makes you think you're qualified to comment on Dr. Wood's conclusions if you haven't even bothered to read her book or examine her evidence?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   


She neglects to remember that the building was on fire when it came down, and those fires didn't go out, so burning debris hit cars and buildings, setting them ablaze.


That's funny, I do not recall any claim of people near the bottom of those Towers being burned from falling debris when they collapsed. In fact, all evidence shows that these people were covered in dust, which they did not even complain of being hot. So, according to you, these alleged falling burning building parts managed to set numerous vehicles and buildings on fire, but somehow avoided the scores of people who were running from the scene?

Your theory makes as much sense as the OS supported garbage about some magical fireball traveling down the elevator shaft and blowing out the lobby. At least you guys are consistent with your unsubstantiated ludicrous claims.

By the way, can you provide any video or photographic evidence to support your claim of burning building parts falling to the ground during collapse and setting vehicles or anything else on fire? Or, are you just simply drawing convenient conclusions without evidence?
edit on 17-9-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Maybe you can answer my question.

Why did the explosives not get set off by the impact of the plane?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why would they? Holloywood also tells you you can blow up a fuel tank by riddling it with bullets. Dont believe everything hollywood says. Depending on the explosives used its very well possible that fire destroys them rather than to set them off.


Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building (if we ignore the ke). That is 9 times the weight of the buildings themselves. With so much weight, you don't even need to ignite the explosives, the building would collapse because it can't hold all that weight.

Or to give a short summary, your OP is total complete utter nonsense. One example of how truther sites spread lies and falsehoods, like we were discussing in the other thread.


The buildings weighed 450.000 tons each (roughly). So 9 times the weight is greatly exaggerated. Its a fraction of the weigt of the building, not a mutliple. This is the kind of debunking I come across frequently. However I will admit that there is no evidence that ALL of the concrete turned to dust. So the 8.5 Kiloton figure is very generous. However a figure well above 0.1 is more realistic.


The energy density of explosives does not differ that much. So if there is any validity to the OP, there should be about 8.5 million kg of explosives in each building

Nope.... that's 8.5 *THOUSAND* tons of explosives.... not million.

Kilo = Thousand
Mega = Million

8.5 kilotons of TNT equivalent would weigh approximately 8.5 thousand tons, give or take 20%, depending upon the type of explosive (Assuming non nuclear, of course)


You are wrong as well. You have times a thousand for Kilo and times a thousand for tons. So you get 8.5 KILO tons which translate to 8.500.000 Kilograms.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Personally i doubt it was more concrete that turned the other concrete to dust, get 20 concrete blocks stack them up and drop another 5 blocks on top, will the 5 blocks vaporize the 20 underneath and turn them all to powder as they drop to the floor?.
you really think it is possible?.

As for questions about what did turn it to dust, ask yourself that same question.

What will turn concrete to a fine powder?.
Or do you refuse to ask yourself that question because you don't like the direction the answers take you?.

edit on 17-9-2011 by The X because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Why would something like RDX get set off by an explosion from a plane?.
Plastic is very safe and needs an initiating cap to set it off, please go inform yourself some before weighing in with questions that can be easily answered with a few seconds googling....


How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?

There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel. Second, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The high explosive RDX, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. 2 Third, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft, given that the planes may have been flown by GPS-equipped autopilots providing targeting accuracy to within a few meters. Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. The casings of jetliners' black boxes protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000ºF for up to 30 minutes.

your exact question answered

The implied safety of RDX in explosive situations probably infers that either it or something very similar would have been used.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join