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.

 

New Theory Explains Collapse of World Trade Center's Twin Towers

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


How do random explosions cause the exact same outcome in two buildings, and what about WTC 7?

This is as bad as the 'natural thermite' from aircraft aluminium, and rust from the steel, OSers were peddling once upon a time.

its actually 3 buildings all collapsing the same way, now if 2 was unbeliable and statisticly impossible. 3 now cmon people.
i think you made a good point that doesnt get raised much
the buildings could of won a syscronized diving event
both hit in different parts from different angles, different speeds of the plane, different amounts of fuel left, with almost an hour or so inbetween of each hitting or something like that?
these are a hell of a lot of variables. and any scientist would no you cant encorporate all that and still have the same product in a random event.
not to they were pulled at the same time when they got hit at different times.
but what about wtc7, that makes it statisticly impossible.
i think the answer is obvious when you look at it like that.

steel does not react like that.
a fire at the top cannot pancake and destroy the bottom of the building, it would be more likely the top would tip if the steel became unstable. even if it did pancake it would stop when the fall reached the hard steel.

cmon guys,
if so many people believe this why havent we rewritten science and physics yet?
edit on 22-9-2011 by UniverSoul because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by stinger94
 





I am taking all the denials into account, maybe afterwards the guy that said "pull it" found out insurance wouldn't cover the building if it was demolished on purpose before an inspector could come in, so he changed the story. Then it would be defrauding the insurance agency and inadvertently fueled more conspiracy theories about what really happened.


Do you know that it takes more than a few hours to set up a demolition? More like weeks. So how could they have done this so fast?


Fast? What time frame are You looking at? It could have been a year They had to prep the buildings.
edit on 9/22/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I agree. That was my point but I can see how it was taken the other way. My response was pointing out how it was impossible to have a demolition planned and carried out in one day. That would mean that the setup was done sometime before hand. Like you say, maybe a year or more.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Yes. Gotcha.

AnyOne who says, "There wasn't enough time to install the CD explosives," hasn't though about the problem much.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by stinger94
 





I am taking all the denials into account, maybe afterwards the guy that said "pull it" found out insurance wouldn't cover the building if it was demolished on purpose before an inspector could come in, so he changed the story. Then it would be defrauding the insurance agency and inadvertently fueled more conspiracy theories about what really happened.


Do you know that it takes more than a few hours to set up a demolition? More like weeks. So how could they have done this so fast unless it was planned and set up for demolition at an earlier time? I believe it was.


edit on 22-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: to further expand on what I meant.


Guess you don't remember the blackout that NYC had the days leading up to 9/11, oh and the floors of one of the towers just happened to be empty where the plane hit for reconstruction. They had amble time to place their explosions, and let's not forget the security guards were sent home while the construction crew there.

Massive attack on that scale level screams inside job.

The so called Muslims that tried to blow it up the last time didn't succeed.

Do the math.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


It was impossible for the aluminium to have caused explosions because for 10 years they've told us there were no explosions. Aluminium can't cause explosions that never happened.

The only way that story is plausible is if they're changing the official story. If that's the case that means they were wrong about the explosions then or they're wrong about them now and that the conspiracy theory people are more reliable because they were right from day 1. That there were explosions.

EDIT:
How did all that aluminum from the planes get into building 7?

Am I to believe that jet fuel PLUS office fires wasn't hot enough to cause explosions in the towers without melted aluminum, that it took the melting of the aluminum to explain the explosions in the towers, but that no aluminum was needed for the same type of explosions caused in WTC 7???

What's special about the towers that you need to explain the explosions with aluminum, but the same doesn't apply to 7? Did 7 have magical explosions? If pure office fires brought down 7, then that would be enough to explain the towers as well. There's no need to even bring melted aluminum into the discussion.

But if office fires CAN'T do it and you need the melted aluminum to explain what happened, then that just proves that 7 shouldn't have come down. No plane hit it.
edit on 23-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by stinger94
 





I am taking all the denials into account, maybe afterwards the guy that said "pull it" found out insurance wouldn't cover the building if it was demolished on purpose before an inspector could come in, so he changed the story. Then it would be defrauding the insurance agency and inadvertently fueled more conspiracy theories about what really happened.


Do you know that it takes more than a few hours to set up a demolition? More like weeks. So how could they have done this so fast unless it was planned and set up for demolition at an earlier time? I believe it was.


edit on 22-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: to further expand on what I meant.


Guess you don't remember the blackout that NYC had the days leading up to 9/11, oh and the floors of one of the towers just happened to be empty where the plane hit for reconstruction. They had amble time to place their explosions, and let's not forget the security guards were sent home while the construction crew there.

Massive attack on that scale level screams inside job.

The so called Muslims that tried to blow it up the last time didn't succeed.

Do the math.

You have taken what I wrote out of context. I am not arguing against you. I believe they put explosives in the buildings (especially WTC 7). They had to for it fall the way it did. I'm just saying it had to be done days or weeks or even months before not the same day. I think what I wrote wasn't clear enough.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Na, I misread the last part. Sorry.

But, they had their window of opportunity and amble time to place it in the building when they let the security guards go the night of the blackout, which was before 9/11. I do remember that.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by UniverSoul
its actually 3 buildings all collapsing the same way, now if 2 was unbeliable and statisticly impossible. 3 now cmon people.


Not exactly, WTC 7 was a proper implosion demolition that landed mostly in its own footprint, the towers rubble was ejected in a 360d arc around the towers. There is a reason for that, the towers were too tall, and the footprint too small, for them to be collapsed into their footprints.

But I'm being picky, yes it was three buildings that collapsed completely, and symmetrically, from asymmetrical damage and fires.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Come on Tinfoilman, use your imagination... Next they will say that during the collapse of the North tower large amounts of the 300 tonnes of aluminum was hurled into WTC7 and that this is why we heard explosions in Seven.

You make some great points by the way.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Come on Tinfoilman, use your imagination... Next they will say that during the collapse of the North tower large amounts of the 300 tonnes of aluminum was hurled into WTC7 and that this is why we heard explosions in Seven.

You make some great points by the way.


If I had to use my imagination anymore than I do now to even believe the official story might be plausible it would blow out the back of my head.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 



I will grant you that one sir, as I have no answer. No, I did not know it took weeks to do. I think the linked article does a good job of explain a possibility, and I still believe all the runoff could have caused the collapse of 7. I am not going to be a hard fast stickler to this, I want to try to keep an open mind to other possibilities. I will look at 7 falling again to see for myself that it too fell within it's own footprint, because then, as you eluded to, the info is bunk. The pancaking theory as displayed in the article does do a lot of explaining for me because IF the melted aluminum was dripping down and combined with sprinklers going off throughout the entire building, and coming in contact with rusted metal throughout the building I would understand the explosions going off throughout the building. Than to me, a guy with limited understanding of physics, believes that the way the buildings fell is entirely plausible. I will hand it to you though, you came at me with a simple question without an attack. More people could learn from you good sir.
I look at all possibilities and still keep the conspiracy theory open. I have read in some places where the towers were closed down shortly before the attack for, and I could be mistaken, but upgrades to wiring or a/c's. If that was the case, then it would be very easy to sneak in explosives and set the building to blow. I have read other places that the buildings were never shut down. It's difficult to put the pieces together when there is so much contradictory stuff out there. Which is why this in my opinion has yet to be solved.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm sorry I don't know what CD is. I didn't say it was fact, and I was having a little fun too. I said it seemed plausible, and to me it is. I'm not hard fast in saying this is what happened. No two ways about it, it happened like this. Truth is none of us know for sure. Some of you guys are physics and chemistry experts, and I will listen to you too. But when people just poo poo something because it goes against what they want it to say, I call those people nay-Sayers because they just want to say nope. Now I'm not calling you or anyone in particular a nay-sayer, as I said I was having a bit of fun. 10 years later, yes, too little too late. Some of you have stated same thing as before. Well, to me,, not quite. We have heard thermite and many other things too include demolition. So why is liquified aluminum and a chemical reaction with water and rust any different? I know that I don't know the difference between melted aluminum and thermite. I don't pretend too. I like to gather up knowledge and see which I think floats, as in poo floating and which one seems to be a piece of the puzzle I didn't see before. That's all. No judgement, just poking fun and giving my two cents.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
This has several threads.

The first of which, posted 2 days ago, is here....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I didn't forget about the blackouts because I don't think I even knew about them, and I don't really remember it being talked about on here. I was on Camp Lejeune in NC when it happened and cannot remember the blackouts even being discussed. Weren't the blackouts semi regular in New York back then or am I mixing New York and California up? I'm also not saying anything you guys are bringing up is wrong. You guys seem to be trying to throw water where there is no fire. Although it seems to be getting a little heated. I also for some reason didn't remember when I was posting earlier that there were explosions heard from 7, or the fact the news reported it had fallen before it actually fell.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Here's a better theory


www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
The Bush family owned the security company that guarded the towers.
many floors were unoccupied in them by the way....
A Isreali shipping company (possible mossad front company)
broke its lease amd moved out just prior 9/11, they took the bomb dogs out of the towers weeks before 9/11 as well.....WTF?
There are too many other questions which are not answered by the aluminium theory.
Like the explosions which took place BEFORE the planes hit......The very precise destruction of the towers which were tall enough to fall asymetrically should random aluminium explosions be the cause.....
WTC 7? no plane
No cigar....................................



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by myselfaswell
 


You really found that as informational or believable OP? They had bombs explode in the basements of 1&2 the people down there heard them and felt them prior to any time for the fuel, which exploded mostly outside the building to have caused this make believe story. One has to wonder why the story keeps changing and the explanations do to after everyone is debunked. We need a real independent investigation into all those attacks and building 7 and everything surrounding them and then let the chips fall where they may. If it was CIA or Bush/Cheney they should be tried and hung if it was 19 guys in caves with no collusion or foreknowledge (which I think there was and it is proven) then let that be it. But let's get the truth by an independent group of experts in all the fields. Senators and former governors are not experts in such things they are experts in lying to you...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinger94
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm sorry I don't know what CD is. I didn't say it was fact, and I was having a little fun too. I said it seemed plausible, and to me it is. I'm not hard fast in saying this is what happened. No two ways about it, it happened like this. Truth is none of us know for sure. Some of you guys are physics and chemistry experts, and I will listen to you too. But when people just poo poo something because it goes against what they want it to say, I call those people nay-Sayers because they just want to say nope. Now I'm not calling you or anyone in particular a nay-sayer, as I said I was having a bit of fun. 10 years later, yes, too little too late. Some of you have stated same thing as before. Well, to me,, not quite. We have heard thermite and many other things too include demolition. So why is liquified aluminum and a chemical reaction with water and rust any different? I know that I don't know the difference between melted aluminum and thermite. I don't pretend too. I like to gather up knowledge and see which I think floats, as in poo floating and which one seems to be a piece of the puzzle I didn't see before. That's all. No judgement, just poking fun and giving my two cents.


CD = Controlled demolition.

And the truth is, many of Us know for sure that the OS was a lie. I did not poo-poo. I read the article and applied some thinking. It was clear to Me that the aluminum could NOT explain many details (including, as mentioned above, #7).

If One presumes CD, then EVERYTHING is explained. Now why do We reject an explanation that explains EVERYTHING in favor of theories that stretch to explain SOME of what We saw but never nearly all?

Really. What kind of sense is that?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 



Guess you don't remember the blackout that NYC had the days leading up to 9/11


So what blackout was that?

Never heard anything about a blackout, consideing I live in New Jersey and can see New York from where I live

Unless you referring to the lying nutcase Scott Forbes who started out proclaiming how entire South Tower
was shut done

By time got done dissecting story had backed down to well maybe shutoff power on one floor while working on
electrical system




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join