It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:33 PM

ANOK: The Laws of motion

This was as concise as it gets and was what you..the OP asked for. So being rude about the response was uncalled for.

Praetorius: And the fact that no steel-reinforced skyscrapers have ever collapsed as a result of fire, before or after - until 9/11 when three did - strains credibility.

While the comment from Praetorius is not evidentiary you really must ask yourself why and then look for the evidence which is what this response implies.

The planes tank full of fuel managed to melt steel down to the base of the towers. Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)
All the fuel would have ignited and burned up mostly at the point of impact with residue left to burn up on the floors the impact contained. So what melted the steel below those floors? Sure aviation fuel burns hot but it also burns fast.

Agent_USA_Supporter Again WTC Towers were brought down by explosives and i have a family member who worked at or as demolition worker i have shown him alot of footages of both towers he told me, Oh yes they were brought down by explosives, the official story has alot of holes in it

Of course it’s an assertion that the official explanation has holes in it. A damn good one! Prior to that the poster says a family member in demolition, ie : Someone with experience in the field of demolishing buildings via explosives contends that looking at the footage in his professional opinion were bought down with explosives. Nor is he the only one in the field who comes to that conclusion.

I myself am only going to read the first pages of responses because it would appear that while you are asking for clear descriptions on why the collapse could not have happened without explosives it is your intention to savage those who do just that. It has all been done to death and rehashing the discussion will not change anything.
I am calling this thread a big fat FAIL and moving on.


posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

So did you miss this picture of iron worker with a torch cutting one of the columns?

So why are you lying? Make a statement then deceptively fail to show the entire scene....

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by malachi777

Apparently you are not as well-versed in architectural design as you think. First, most of the fuel was burned on impact. Any residue was gone shortly thereafter. The analogy " pour out a bucket of fuel and try to light part of it" has been used to explain that the fuel was gone shortly after the explosion. I don't know what 'modular egg-crate design' is. If you look at the interview I posted a few posts back you'll hear Frank DeMartini, Manager of Design and Construction on the WTC, say that he believed it could have withstood multiple impacts of the 707 variety. Let's theorize that after the impacts that heat did weaken the steel at the point of impact and the top section of the building started to fall on the floors below. Let's say there were 80 floors below it. As it fell it took, say, 1/2 second to weaken the floor below it a so that it could continue falling. That means if it continued at 1/2 second per floor then the building would have taken 40 seconds to collapse. No. let's say it took half that. Say it took 20 seconds to collapse. Well, it actually took like 12 seconds. Can't happen. The building was shot.

Let's use a little common sense here. Jet fuel does not burn longer than a few minutes, but 90,000 pounds of it does. Have you ever seen a fuel truck burn? We had one here burn for hours and destroyed one of our over passes off 528 just east of Orlando. Second, imagine all the chemicals, paper, chairs, tables, carpet, etc... All of these are flammable. You have to stop being closed minded and look at the whole picture. I believed this was a government event until I stood back, used common sense most of us were born with and really thought it out. In order to get the truth, we all have to look at the evidence, approach it with caution, study it and we will all get the results. I am not here to defame you, I am giving my opinion on the knowledge I have and telling you the only facts I know. I gave my opinion on WTC 7.

No Malachi, you have to trust in those engineers that design these structures. I can understand if you're uncomfortable having to consider that the government of the US isn't the pillar of respectability that it once was. However, what you propose goes against all science involved in the design of buildings. You see, the structure below the point of impact was undamaged. this means that you had a perfectly good building below the damaged area. This building was most likely designed using a safety factor of 2.5 meaning that it was overbuilt. The architects that designed the structure stated that it was designed to re-distribute the load if part of it was damaged. This means that if an airplane severed columns the remaining undamaged columns would take on the load the damaged columns could no longer support.
As for fire, ask anybody that camps and they should tell you that the dark smoke rising out of the WTC indicates an oxygen-starved fire. There are also pictures and testimony that indicate the heat was not that intense. Steel melts at about 2700 deg F. Jet fuel burns at about 1800 deg F. There just was no source of combustion hot enough to sufficiently weaken the steel to cause it to fall, The steel below the impact would have slowed the collapse and most likely stopped its progression long before it reached the ground.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by malachi777

This is an absolute lie. There is video of people inside WTC 7 after the collapse. There was no explosion that knocked out any outer columns. Prior to the collapse of the building.

The cars all around building 7 were not crushed by debris. There was no structural damage to WTC 7 caused by the collapse of the two towers.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:41 PM
Ok let's just say the gov't was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Why would they make it harder for themselves by putting explosives in the building? Isn't hijacking the plane and crashing them into the buildings good enough?

Just seeing those planes going into the building will scare the people and that would be enough of an excuse to go create new laws and invade other countries.
edit on 27-9-2011 by ajaxmack because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Ilyich

You've completely missed the point of schrodinger's cat. And the creators of the GCP have said that their experiment is essentially inconclusive. So basically your belief is completely baseless and pretty darn random. I'd learn a bit more about quantum physics before I based my beliefs on one of it's thought experiments.

Says the guy with a degree in quantum physics...

Nice answer as usual mister "notsoobviously obvious".

Peace out.
edit on 27-9-2011 by bigwig22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by thedman

Why am I lying?
I am not lying.

You are the one being deceptive IMO.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by ajaxmack
Ok let's just say the gov't was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Why would they make it harder for themselves by putting explosives in the building? Isn't hijacking the plane and crashing them into the buildings good enough?

Just seeing those planes going into the building will scare the people and that would be enough of an excuse to go create new laws and invade other countries.
edit on 27-9-2011 by ajaxmack because: (no reason given)

I think the best anybody could do to answer your question is to speculate. If you read about Larry Silverstein there are some suspicious activities concerning the insurance on the towers after he took over the lease. He collected several billion dollars from the insurance on the two towers. Now he is building the new tower. You tell me why it was done.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by ajaxmack

I completely agree! And actually, one plane hitting one building would have been enough. Oh wait a minute, I think I found the culprit who took down 7, it was the Big Bad Wolf, I found a photo of him blowing it down! Come on guys, let be real here. I know our government has done really evil things throughout American history, but I am still an American and I love my country. We are the most yearned country to live throughout the world. If you want to live anywhere else, I would be happy to help you with your flight to another country to live, but you'd have to give up your American citizenship. I am American, I love this country, its people and its resilience. I am finished posting on this subject, since all of the conspiracy theorists cannot give facts, only ideas. Have a great night and God Bless You!!!!

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by baboo
I really have to go to bed but I will answer to this feasible question. In 1993 terrorism insurance was taken out on the WTC after terrorists attacked the first time, sometime in 1993. It cost the insurers butt loads of money to pay for it too. This became a huge court ordeal.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by thedman

Not being so great with metalworking myself I marvel at the mechanics involved in cutting this:

How (and why) would you cut the beam behind the rod?

Just saying.

Have a look at this picture:

Look at the column next to the one being cut. Can you see the burn hole?

Now look back at the first image, doesn't it make sense that if it had a similar burn on it that the worker in the picture was cutting away the cladding, hence the square cutaway, and that the cut to column itself was already present?

Look back to the other column. Look up its height, see the straight burn? How and why was that damage done?
edit on 27-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:20 PM
Whats up with all these threads lately about people claiming they need evidence or point me toward this or that ? I keep thinking more and more that these people are searching for where the information is so it can be blocked. Like paid gov trolls or something. It has been 10 yrs for someone not to have even slightly researched it at this point is non sense. I can not wonder more about how in this day and age people don't research things.It is nothing more then complete laziness honestly. No other excuse seeing as we have all the worlds knowledge literally at the tips of our fingers.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:23 PM
Well for one.. the "The Coefficient of Friction" alone dictates that the buildings "could not" fall within the time frame they were allotted (given that the pancake theory was validated by the commission board as being the reason for the buildings failure) .. here is a link to the simplicity of frictional forces alone preventing it from falling within the few seconds it did fall within (1,2 & 7) formula is also very simple (F = mR ..

Where m is the coefficient of friction and R is the normal reaction force.
) (I will not even get into the wonderful world of "The Dynamic Coefficients Of Friction", as I would not have enough characters to do so)

Then you have the mathematical improbability that gravity could cause a synchronized form of kinetic waveform doubling that would allow for "pulverization" and crumbling of "steel reinforced concrete", not to mention even the mathematical improbability of an object having segments of primary I-Beam girders completely segregating into individual pieces just long enough to fit on a standard flat bed truck (they are welded in place and cold pinned into position..

Then of course one could go into details over the way the external load of the building was designed to "shift" load variances due to the natural wind resistances felt at a building standing over 100 stories tall (their was a concrete, steel reinforced "tub" remember?) and the forces that make a building that tall stand the way it did, did not preclude it having natural leaks, due to the building shifting in the wind, sometime more then a foot at times..

The lynch pin, was the intricate way the building shifted loads through the top of the building, depending on the sheer loads (side loads) felt that day, everyday, for the entire time the buildings stood, if one side was having increased sheer loads, the central structure of the way the top was designed (similar in theory to the way a "sway bar" works on a performance vehicle, and heavy duty vehicles work, by transferring the loads to the opposing side), in the case of buildings 1&2, the loads were "divided" among the opposing sides of the buildings, torsion loads were handled by the way the exterior building shared "torsion" loads (twisting) that any building does of such heights, by incorporating the basic way a "screen door" handles a puncture, shoot a BB into a metal screen door, and the design, allows for the vertical and horizontal "over/under" of each wire, to separate and prevent sheer, torsion, tension, and camber loads, the hole will be the size of the BB itself.. the designer of the building, used this principle, to allow for a large object to penetrate the building, and "NOT" cause the building to lose cohesion of load carrying (very well engineered building IMHO)..

Originally designed for the largest commercial craft of the time (a 727), the design allowed for entry at nearly "any" juncture into the building itself, hence the basic laws of physics (leverage loads in this case) dictate that the lower a hit is to the base of a vertical structure, the greater the energy potential is multiplied, to "decrease" the window of load transferences, hence the "hits" that both building took, were at one of the "lowest" potentials for shortening the window of load transferences (too high up the building), as the leverage loads were too low, based on the buildings designs..

In final..

The evidence stacks up "against" the ability for the buildings to have even been able to fall over in the first place, they were "over engineered" to prevent them "FROM" falling..

If I was to place the mathematical formulas (which are used everyday by more then one PHD'ed mathematician and and structural engineer) you would of course find fault in the mathematics itself (this is a road I have been down before).. I will comment no further on this subject matter (at least at ATS that is) as it is mathematically "IMPOSSIBLE" for the buildings to have fallen, given the schematics of the buildings, show that it could "NOT" have happened the way it did..

I would say I am "sorry" to burst your protective bubble, but then of course, I would be "untrue" to myself to do so, as the "mathematical, and architectural engineering" evidence says otherwise..

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by userid1

Originally posted by NWOwned
Explosives were used on the towers. You wanna know why I say that? And with confidence?

Because the Pentagon post crash evidence and group lawn photos are all clearly 'staged.'

Me, I know a lot more about photography than I do physics...

If you would just like to provide some proof to support your claim about the photos all being staged - we'd all have something to consider - otherwise...yawn...

So, if you have no evidence to support your Pentagon claims, then why would we listen to your claim that we *didn't* actually see planes impact the WTC - we just saw what "we were supposed to see"?

What you've done is taken a totally unproven allegation and used it as a cornerstone to build yet *another* totally unproven allegation.

Prove your first allegation - and PLEASE, don't even try to bring your personal "expertise" as a photographer in as proof - it just doesn't make it as an argument. Sorry, but let's be real - who are you as far as we know?

Before I go on I want to say that I think you may be misinterpreting two words that I used in my previous post. Those two words are: 1. Staged and 2. Shown.

Also, I beg to differ as to whether or not what I know of, and my long experience with, photography, counts as any weight of argument or not. For I will indeed make a case that it does and people may take from that what they will.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone necessarily, or trying to save the world at all, I'm just trying to use what I know to figure this 9/11 thing out. What I'm saying is pretty much just what I'm thinking. If you or anyone else resonates with it great, if not, that's ok too.

Recently I watched the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I'm sure most of you have seen it. It's about an ordinary guy (Richard Dreyfuss) with an ordinary family and an ordinary job, he drives an ordinary pick up truck etc. But he has an experience one day, an insight, a Hunch say, that something is up, he don't have all the pieces as to what it exactly is, or who knows or is involved or what the big picture is Yet, but he's got this Gnawing Truth Urge in him that won't leave him alone.

One day he starts to fashion this little mound out of the dinner his wife cooked up for him, later he starts throwing dirt and potted plants in his window and builds this giant mud tower right in his kitchen. Of course, by now everyone, his wife, his kids, his neighbors, all think he's NUTS. Something's buggin' him see, he just wants to know, just wants the answer so very bad. While he's caking on the mud on his house tower, on the TV there's this news report of a train derailment and poison chemical spill near Devil's Tower Wyoming. That's when he sees that's what the dirt mound is all about. And so he got to go to Wyoming. Right? You all seen the movie, watch it again it's good fun.

Ok, now here's where it gets interesting and you may want to pay very close attention...

He meets up with his "Truther" girlfriend who also feels something is definitely UP with the whole thing and they head off with gas masks in a station wagon to Wyoming. Along the way there are radio reports of poison gas and evacuations, not only that, along the highway as they near Devil's Tower there are what seem like dead horses and cows right by the side of the road. Coming upon a roadblock they see army types and scientists dressed in decontamination white suits all wearing gas masks and looking quite seious and "official"... they then decide to turn off the highway and go cross country. Eventually they get captured and interviewed, then placed in gas masks and herded on to a chopper containing 10 or so other civilians to be flown out of the contaminated dangerous area... before the chopper takes off with all the others gripped by fear and buying the RUSE, Dreyfuss, being a hard core Truther with a burning Gnawing Truth Urge defies common sense, advice from the other civilians and even the look from his truther girlfriend's face and he removes his mask to breathe the 'possibly' poison air. Which, if you've seen the movie, turns out to not be poisonous at all! Ta-Da!

Watching all this a few things came to mind. We could say that the roadblocks in the movie were close to what I mean by 'staged' since there was no poison gas. Or the seemingly dead animals on the side of the road could be what I mean by 'shown', as in you are shown something that based on the narrative that accompanies it (lethal poison gas tale) you might just at first blush believe. As it turns out, a military man discloses later that those animals were tranquilized and not even dead, guess they figured no one would get out of their car to look even though they were all "conveniently" strewn by the roadside...

Sure it's just a movie but looking at it, what it mostly reminded me of really was the Pentagon.

To be continued...

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:34 PM
im no scientist but wouldnt a collapse by two airplane strikes cause a collapse from the impact zone not the entire building all at once?

also i find it unlikely that steel was melted by burning office supplies as the jet fuel would have burned up in less than a minute. but lets assume the fire was hot enough wouldnt the steel fail gradually as it reached tempature not the entire building all at once?

building 7 really highlights these points as even the 9/11 commision couldnt come up with a plausible explanation as to how a 47 story building over a block long fell in its own footprint at just under freefall speed and was never hit by a plane nor was it entirely on fire and yet the entire building collapsed? i doubt thats even possible much less likely.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by baboo
I really have to go to bed but I will answer to this feasible question. In 1993 terrorism insurance was taken out on the WTC after terrorists attacked the first time, sometime in 1993. It cost the insurers butt loads of money to pay for it too. This became a huge court ordeal.


I don't think that was correct Malachi. I believe Silverstein took out insurance on the twin towers shortly after he took over the lease-about 6 weeks before 911.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by citizen3273676
also i find it unlikely that steel was melted by burning office supplies as the jet fuel would have burned up in less than a minute. but lets assume the fire was hot enough wouldnt the steel fail gradually as it reached tempature not the entire building all at once?


That is another funny thing that never gets mentioned. As the steel got hotter wouldn't it have to lose 10% of its strength before it lost 100%? And then 20% and 30% and 40% etc. etc?

So wouldn't the top kind of sag down and not drop instantaneously?

So doesn't it sound like a lot of people want to believe some really stupid sh# just because they find the alternative even more repulsive than stupid sh#? But the Laws of Physics don't care what people prefer to believe. They don't work that way!


posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by playswithmachines

We're still on the same page, dude.
Zero resistance means freefall means impossible unless certain floors are pulverized in advance.
Did you know all security cameras were switched off for maintainance 2 weeks before the crash?

Let's drop on top of your head a car and see how much resistance you can provide...

BTW, first PROVE that "security cameras were switched off", second PROVE that ANYONE could plant tons of explosives in a building, and then when over 3,000 people return to the buildings to work NO ONE noticed anything suspicious...

OMG you seem ignorant on this post.. (not that i find you clever on others, but this one is so obvious) How many ppl that actually works in a big building like that have access to the core columns or elevator shafts? Yeah, probably 3000... the secretary should have noticed!

Peace out.

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 10:40 PM
How the Towers couldn't fall.
1. The towers were built with a steel skeleton.
2 These skeletons were designed to hold almost twice their design weight when loaded.
3 The very bottom columns hold up the entire building and have a built in safety factor.
4 The very top columns basically only hold themselves up and also have a safety factor.
I've laid it out like that, because some people seem to think that the building was the same from top to bottom.
Indeed, the interior columns were built somewhat like the structure of the Empire State Building.

Think of it this way.
Divide the building into the top half and the bottom half.
Now the bottom half is built to hold itself up and hold up the top half,
but the top half only has to hold itself up.

Now lets take out a couple of floors, lets pull them,
just take them out, they're gone.
What happens?
They collide with one another,and as each structure collapses energy is expended and the top structure begins to slow as it meets resistance.
Where the two structures meet, massive deformation is taking place, but wait....
The top is tilting, following the path of least resistance ( the air) and it falls to the ground, not in its
own footprint.

The bottom half is almost intact, being twice as strong and heavier.
It's like crashing two cars head on, the little one gets the brunt of the damage.

I've simplified everything, because it is simple, there's no way those buildings could fall like they did


posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 11:21 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Thanks again OS myth protectors and supporters for giving us yet another opportunity to present the truth to the uninformed.



Again, tell us, if that was caused by explosives WHY WEREN'T THEY HEARD?... and please, no nonsense about "silent explosives"...

You obviously have no idea how tall the towers were, or the fact that dust is not only concrete.

If you've never heard any of the multitude of testimonies from witnesses who reported hearing explosives, then you haven't done nearly enough research on this subject... plain and simple

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in