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: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
No control demolition, the building fell naturally.

See video below, the mid section of the building is destroyed and the top part of the building falls on it self collapsing the floors below 1 by 1.



Seriously, how would you rig an entire building with explosives in public without anyone knowing. You would need to hire ninjas and we all know ninjas were extinct many years ago.


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

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




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ajaxmack
 

Are those steel buildings? Also, doesn't it have to take place, the explosive part, or the removal of struct support, in the middle?


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



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
It is weird how people get fixated on things and ignore others. All of this talk about collapse.

How did the top 29 stories of the south tower tilt/rotate 22 degrees in a couple of seconds? How many columns had to sheer for that to happen. The bottom moved horizontally about 20 feet when the building only moved 15 inches when the plane hit.

Where was the center of mass relative to the core in the bottom portion? Why didn't it keep tilting and fall down the side?

psik



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Not sure if they're all steel building.

You don't have to take out the mid section to collapse the whole building. Look at the last building in the video, the section was destroyed near the top of the building.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ajaxmack
 

They were not steel buildings.

But that's the Bezant hypothesis, what he calls "crush up - crush down". However, when we look at the actual destruction of the twin towers, that's not what happened. Instead we have a fountain of cascading debris forming a debris wave which continued without any appreciable loss of momentum all the way to the ground, in the process leaving little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining length of undamanged structure.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien

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...



the maths in your links are all just speculation, maths won't cut this open...sorry



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ajaxmack
 


Your video achieved nothing because those buildings are old and not supported by steel.

The Twin Towers were a spectacle of modern architecture and strength; your video shows rickety old buildings that could've half-fallen over on their own, that is why they are being demolished.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ajaxmack
 

They were not steel buildings.

But that's the Bezant hypothesis, what he calls "crush up - crush down". However, when we look at the actual destruction of the twin towers, that's not what happened. Instead we have a fountain of cascading debris forming a debris wave which continued without any appreciable loss of momentum all the way to the ground, in the process leaving little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining length of undamanged structure.


"Fountain of Cascading Debris", huh, sounds like something Dr. Judy Wood would say.

Wake up, there were no explosives in the building, all is revealed in "Where Did The Towers Go"



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajaxmack

Seriously, how would you rig an entire building with explosives in public without anyone knowing. You would need to hire ninjas and we all know ninjas were extinct many years ago.


The towers did not need to be rigged/wired with explosives. They can be detonated electronically. Lots of unidentified service engineers entered the towers the week-end previous to 9/11 during the power-down for computers mantenance, according to Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower. The men could have added the high-explosives then.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by AngryAlien

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...



the maths in your links are all just speculation, maths won't cut this open...sorry


Everything in this thread is speculation, what's your point? At least I can present something that attempts to use some logic to explaig this. You just dismiss what you don't want to hear...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by ajaxmack

Seriously, how would you rig an entire building with explosives in public without anyone knowing. You would need to hire ninjas and we all know ninjas were extinct many years ago.


The towers did not need to be rigged/wired with explosives. They can be detonated electronically. Lots of unidentified service engineers entered the towers the week-end previous to 9/11 during the power-down for computers mantenance, according to Scott Forbes, who worked in the South Tower. The men could have added the high-explosives then.


There were NO explosives, explosives dont turn 500,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.

Furthermore how about the cars that were "toasted", some of them 3/4 of a mile away??



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


If you watch the video of the towers when there were built. You would know the spire was really heavy. The support for this went down into the core of the building to about three floors and attached to core colums..

Only way for this to collapse first is something taking out the core colums. IE= Controlled Demolitions

Watch the video of the towers construction.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ajaxmack
 


Man I have to say that this is good evidence to show and I'm a truther! Sure we can make a few arguments to the contrary, but for now you deserve some kudos. I haven't seen that video before. I'm pretty sure what folks are going to say about this, but if it brings us closer to a concensus, then let's have at it. After all we are supposed to be making reasonable arguments and if we want to be taken seriously, then we should return the favor and say, "well you win this round, but I'll be back next time."

This proves that it is possible for the top part to crush the bottom part as it falls down and yes, we know the twin towers are different buildings, so it's nearly impossible to make a comparison.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


as are you unable to do so.you just seem to be repetative with you tell me.But forward no self evidence.Nuff sed bye.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The Law of Reason...:lol
ebunked....


1. What would it do? You may be trying to use the law of reason but not of common sense. The dust was not all concrete and there was tons of concrete left to remove. Drywall anyone?
2. Look up what a smelter is, how it works and what can happen to metal when heated in enclosed areas with large fires...
3. 3 miles? Where did you dig this one up...I think this is going in my signature...
4. WHat squibs? What squibs were visually present PRIOR to the collapse the way a CD is done. NO CD i have ever witnessed collapsed prior to explosives unless it is pulled down.
5. A fire and the destruction of concrete during collapse are two separate entities. Why are you comparing them.
6. A plane that was lost, doing roughly 200 mph and maybe clipped the building. Not one going 500 on a collision course, tilting at the mast minute for maximum damage. Again, made to withstand a hit but it says nothing about surviving the ensuing fires.Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers did not last that long but then again it was not a normal electrical fire
7. Actually, quite a few floors of the inner core remained after each collapse. This is a fact. Google it or stay in denial...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
If the twin towers did not collaps from the plane impact that would suggest a goverment cover up...could our gov do such an act????? why would they??? ummm lets see what happened right after 911...who had the most to gain from it...we went in afganistan...tried to control the area...then Iraq..hummmmm bin laden is saudi.why didnt we go fight terrirost in saudi arabia??ahhh but its cause we already got the saudi's oil on lock...but wait has the US gov done something like this in the past??spill its citizens blood for a political adgendas........USS liberty 1967.....many more....look...listen...read and think for youself..and the truth will clear up for ya...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ajaxmack
 


If you've followed this 9/11 conspiracy forum you've heard that a few months prior to the incident a man showed up drunk and asking for schematics to the building. Some claim that he wanted schematics to know where exactly to guide the planes to. But honestly, how many pilots could hit the building at all? How many could hit a precise spot? How useful would the schematics have been to them? It seems like the schematics would've been much more useful if the use of explosives was planned.

Nice video of about 20 buildings coming down exactly like the tower did.
edit on 27-9-2011 by Thestargateisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Ask yourself this, if i dropped a brick of steel on an egg, would the very real resistance the egg offered actualy meaningfully slow the brick?


That is such a lame example. How about ifyou dropped a brick of steel on a larger brick of steel. I'm sure you would then get resistance.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Just as well no buildings have ever been filmed collapsing due to fire, otherwise some of the repeated nonsense in this thread would be a total load of bunk:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Do people just not have search functions on their computers or have they not heard of google?

Cue the "oh but that is different to the WTC collapse..." in 3..2..1..
edit on 27-9-2011 by XtraTL because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajaxmack
No control demolition, the building fell naturally.

See video below, the mid section of the building is destroyed and the top part of the building falls on it self collapsing the floors below 1 by 1.



Seriously, how would you rig an entire building with explosives in public without anyone knowing. You would need to hire ninjas and we all know ninjas were extinct many years ago.


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

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


People who worked in the towers said that on the weekends they would hear strange construction noises. A man said he was there on a Saturday and the floor above their office was vacant and he heard loud noises like huge things being dragged and stuff like that. Also, apparently the security system was shut off the weekend before 9/11. The security force was sent home. The company that provided security was run or managed by Marvin Bush. Another person said, the towers weren't built to withstand the impact of a jet. Yes they were.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join