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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Praetorius

As far as the planes hitting the buildings, how much would they realistically figure in to the structural integrity of the dozens of floors below


Virtually none.


Pretty much all arguments I've seen leave the collapse as a result of 'pancaking', etc. due to the upper part coming down, without making any claims that the floors below were otherwise compromised, so it seems to me that other building collapses would be a good analogue for comparison of HOW they collapse when there is not (successful) intelligent design guiding the process.


What if there is no one guiding the collapse?

But rather, it is found that as a result of the specific design, this happens?


That's what I'm primarily asking for...we have no other examples of unintentionally (or unsuccessfully) demolished buildings that fell straight down through the structure, so if it happened, it would have to be due to design issues.

Are there any collapse models that clarify how the steel core structure would not present problems for assuming this was just a gravity-driven collapse (if this was covered in either of your links, I haven't had chance to review in depth as yet)?

But even if so, then we have to account for building 7 which wasn't designed in the same manner, didn't suffer the same damage, and yet seems to have more or less perfectly mimiced (sp?) a standard CD scenario...which seems to necessarily feed back into anything else that occurred at the WTC.

Why oh why can't there be one central hub on the internet for everyone involved with this issue so we can force them to hammer it out until we're left with undeniable and irrefutable awareness?

Yeah, I know - wish in one hand and crap in the other and tell me which one fills up first...




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


It's pretty glaringly obvious you don't know "how it works".

Steel didn't disintegrate.
The buildings didn't fall down neatly.
And energy still equals mass multiplied by the speed of light (squared).

So, yeah, that was all wrong.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
maybe common sense will help!!!!!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ka119

We've got another winner in here.


You bet.

I noticed right away that you cannot provide any maths that back your analogy of using Jenga blocks.

Fail


Oh i apologize, next time I am playing a child's game ill remember to relate it to a mathematical formula.

Ill also remember not to relate anything of such simplicity in front of you, seemed to go right over your head.

I like how you choose the most simplistic part of my argument towards you to attack.

Good for you buddy



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by scojak
most notably that i remember is that the spindle at the top started falling before the exterior, which means that there was a central explosion or more likely multiple explosions that weakened the central part of the structure.

also the fact that both collapse vertically instead of tipping over is about a million to one.


So your contention is that a building hit by a plane cannot collapse vertically. Indeed you contend that it's "a million to one". Why? [/quo

Allow me to answer this IMHO

Since the plane hit one side of the building, weakening that side it should have fallen over to that side. NOT STRAIGHT DOWN!!! There are numerous sites on line (including a PBS video from 1970) that show the steel construction inside the building. Including the crown, which was there to redistribute the load in case of structural failure.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ka119



Did you seriously just try and get back at me using my exact same points? Wow. Think for yourself there pal.


Hey, you actually think that insulting people makes your point valid, so I thought maybe showing you how STUPID is your argument for "insulting people who don't agree with you" and how it DOES NOT prove your point would wake you up to the facts...

Perhaps when you grow up you will understand this...or perhaps not...


Originally posted by ka119

Would you care to post some proof backing what you believe?
All this bitching and moaning is tiring me out! Time to look at some cold hard 'facts' the government fed the sheeple.

Have at it champ.


I actually posted FACTS, and not made up BS from blogs which are wrong...

WHATREALLYHAPPENED is a blog which does not prove anything at all but the incompetence of the people running it.

They even show a video of WTC7, and you can CLEARLY see it collapsing in parts, the penthouse and part of the roof is seen collapsing 8 second before the rest of the building collapse and this shows it was collapsing in the inside, or on the back and it is not shown on video because there were no cameras filming the back as it was collapsing, yet they still claim "it was a controlled demolition"...



edit on 27-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


I must have missed your facts. Care to post them again?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The towers on 9/11 fell in accordance with all laws of physics. You cannot say that they could not have fallen that way since you have

1. No precedent. You have no idea what a 105 story building will do. Since it was built in the 3 'sections', i think it was lucky that is did not tip or the loss of life would have been greater.

2. No explosives. There were none and none were needed. The impact and ensuing fires were enough to weaken the structure to the point of failure.

3. No free fall speed. It did not fall at free fall speed. Watch this video...Link to video

It is all there. It is a belief that the truther has, like a religion. He who talks the loudest and posts the most videos is bound to win.

edit on 27-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)


Ah, this is exactly one of the things that hangs me up:
1) Correct, no precedent and very lucky indeed - so lucky as to behave in a way different from all other collapse examples we DO have precedent for.

2) That's an argument I hear, but I hear plenty of counter-arguments. It's quite frustrating.

3) Not occurring at free-fall speed merely shoots down one of the common statements we hear - but doesn't really do anything to argue against controlled demolition (as far as I'm aware). Charges are timed, so they can obviously be timed for a slightly slower fall.

Around and around. I hate this debate.

EDIT:
Argh - and are there any models that explain the victim remains found on nearby buildings not directly in the collapse path?

I couldn't care less about argument, I just want to know the truth. And it seems like everything is debatable. Someone just cinch it all up nice and neat, thanks!
edit on 9/27/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechVampyre
Let's not forget building 7.


Yeah no matter what anyone tells me about this collapse, it is clear as day that 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. The other buildings at least have an argument on both sides to why or what might have caused this or that. WTC 7 was planned, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


It was a demolition, defined by the law of REASON!
1. All concrete was pulverized and turned into fine dust. (what you see with the outward projecting squibs).
2. Molten metal was found among the foundations and pancaked. (If it was fires like you were implying it wouldn't have been hot enough to literally melt metal).
3. Steel from the structure was shot out at such a force that it would be equivalent to shooting a cannon ball 3miles.
4. The squibs at the top of the WTC 1, 2 & 7. (Normally only seen during CONTROLLED DEMOLITION)
5. The radius of the debris spread around the area (pulverized concrete). If it was from fire like you said then, explain why it didn't fall on an angle

6. The Twin Towers were made to withstand the largest airplane of the time (Boeing 747), so it wouldn't of been the plane that made the fault causing the building to fall and neither would the fire, THREE TIMES IN A ROW.
7. The buildings central structure would of stayed standing if it was fire, but nope that got blasted away too.

Your post has just been debunked >B)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Are there any collapse models that clarify how the steel core structure would not present problems for assuming this was just a gravity-driven collapse (if this was covered in either of your links, I haven't had chance to review in depth as yet)?


All I can tell you is that Bazant did a limiting case study, where the upper part fell directly, squarely, and perfectly onto the columns below, and he found that the collapse progressed.

If you understand and believe that ANY other scenario is more skewed towards collapse progression, then there's zero reason to continue the study, other than for curiousity's sake.


But even if so, then we have to account for building 7 which wasn't designed in the same manner, didn't suffer the same damage, and yet seems to have more or less perfectly mimiced (sp?) a standard CD scenario...which seems to necessarily feed back into anything else that occurred at the WTC.


I honestly don't see how there's ay feedback here.

They collapsed due to completely different reasons.

In the towers, they collapsed due to fire and impact damage resulting in weakening and then resulted in column failure.

7 collapsed due to floor failure FIRST,( columns never heated up) which led to long span columns without bracing, which then buckled.


Why oh why can't there be one central hub on the internet for everyone involved with this issue so we can force them to hammer it out until we're left with undeniable and irrefutable awareness?

Yeah, I know - wish in one hand and crap in the other and tell me which one fills up first...


You first....

LOL....



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka119

Ill also remember not to relate anything of such simplicity in front of you, seemed to go right over your head.



Again, I notice right away that despite being free to post whatever maths you can dredge up about how it should have tipped, you have yet again avoided doing so.

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NZkraw
 


Evidence of molten metal proves presence of explosives. Iron microspheres in the dust proves molten steel, sprayed or atomized steel to be precise.


edit on 27-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


In order to make something so tall, fall straight downwards, it must suffer complete structural collapse, within a certain amount of time. As everyone knows, heat rises. If the middle and top structure heated and failed, the bottom structure below it would've still held together as it was falling. If this happened it's likely that the sturdy structure below the area that's been compromised would cause the upper and middle part of the building to tilt as it fell. The fact that the tower was quoted as "leaning" moments before it fell straight to the ground, just add more suspicion. When something leans, it falls over, it doesn't fall straight down. Was this when the word was given to take the building down? No one knows, and I bet they never will.

If you accept the video footage that's been replayed so many times as being authentic, you will notice that the failure starts well below where the planes hit, and well below the heat. If you still want more practical proof, listen to the sound of the footage. You can hear the charges going off simultaneously, and in a proper order. If you need anymore proof, follow that viewing up with a known demolition of a similar size and constructed building.

What that means, is anyone's guess. Was it part of the planned attack? Part of some sort of top secret government building self destruct? I don't know, I just know that in my observation the video presented was of a building being demolished, not of one that fell because of airplanes.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It seems there's nothing but split hairs concerning towers 1 and 2 and is the main fuel source of the back and forth bickering. Can we slow it down here? It's wasting all of our time.

Non-truthers want facts. Unfortunately the rubble, with the exception of what Steve Jones analyzed, was hauled off immediately without analysis and we can't get that stuff back. Also trying to argue "common sense" doesn't seem to work for either side as that is still only speculation.

Still no one addressed my previous post here that if we keep the argument down to one issue at a time, we may actually get somewhere. What I would like for us to focus on is just buiilding 7 as it takes the least amount of time to prove/disprove.

Doesn't everyone pretty much agree that 7 came down in such a way as to instill just a little doubt in everyone's mind? And I argue that if that were the only event that happened on that day, someone would dang well do some investigating. Doesn't this deserve some investigation?

If we actually suspect foulness in building 7, that means that the other two aren't even up for debate, because if a cheater cheats in one game, he's not trusted in the next.

One could almost say that building 7 was the magician's magic trick while buildings 1 and 2 were the distraction.

If a company wanted to sell their product to a TV audience, you have to embed the commercials inside a program for maximum effectiveness. The idea needs to slide in there like butter.

Interesting how some pretty important offices were in building 7, which came down quietly compared to the first two and everyone is busy splitting hairs on the other info. Just sayin.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ka119

Ill also remember not to relate anything of such simplicity in front of you, seemed to go right over your head.



Again, I notice right away that despite being free to post whatever maths you can dredge up about how it should have tipped, you have yet again avoided doing so.

Fail


Here you go, not that you would even understand it ("the maths")

www.journalof911studies.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou
 


If the government threw the self destruct switch, then no you don't investigate it.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Okay, so there are a million theories out there, And i am sorry if this one has been brought up before.. but what if there was a possibility that the towers were hit by the planes..

And it was to dangerous for anyone to go in there to rescue anyone, So controlled demolition seemed like the only plausible answer after the fact.. instead of risking more life's..?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NZkraw
reply to post by esdad71
 


It was a demolition, defined by the law of REASON!
1. All concrete was pulverized and turned into fine dust. (what you see with the outward projecting squibs).
2. Molten metal was found among the foundations and pancaked. (If it was fires like you were implying it wouldn't have been hot enough to literally melt metal).
3. Steel from the structure was shot out at such a force that it would be equivalent to shooting a cannon ball 3miles.
4. The squibs at the top of the WTC 1, 2 & 7. (Normally only seen during CONTROLLED DEMOLITION)
5. The radius of the debris spread around the area (pulverized concrete). If it was from fire like you said then, explain why it didn't fall on an angle

6. The Twin Towers were made to withstand the largest airplane of the time (Boeing 747), so it wouldn't of been the plane that made the fault causing the building to fall and neither would the fire, THREE TIMES IN A ROW.
7. The buildings central structure would of stayed standing if it was fire, but nope that got blasted away too.

Your post has just been debunked >B)


Ummm, no. All concrete was not pulverized and turned to dust. Below is my evidence (though something tells me you won't bother to actually read it).

www.uwgb.edu...

www.uwgb.edu...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TechVampyre
 

Most of the people killed on 9/11 were lost their lives when the buildings were completely destroyed.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I hope the found that guy...


The one who designed building 7... and took his engineering license away.....



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join