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: 21
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


dont forget that the world trade centers were built to withstand plane crashs
heres a link if you dont believe me.

source




"The twin towers didn't collapse immediately, but the structural strength was affected by the subsequent explosion and the progressive effects of the fire seem to have triggered the final collapse. Of course it is up to investigators to identify the exact cause of the collapse but it seems to have been a combination of catastrophic events beyond any reasonable expectations."



The World Trade Centers were brought down by explosives.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


Another thing often claimed by truthers is that the core steel had been tested to 2500 degrees for SEVERAL hours to show it could resist fire.

So do you want to explain this!!!



Last person I asked this question to never replied!




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
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.


Care to show those "collapses of SKYSCRAPPERS made similarly as the WTC towerds we DO have precedent for?


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


So hearsay is enough to persuade you?


Originally posted by Praetorius
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.


Yet we never hear these "silent explosives" as the floors collapse. And btw, if we are going to especulate like that we might as well claim Elvis was in the building and he switched the trigger...



Originally posted by Praetorius

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


Is it that inconcivable that the plane explosions could have thrown body parts far away from the rubble?



Originally posted by Praetorius

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)


Every claim made by the 9/11 truthers has been debunked, from the claims of "thermite", including the claim that scientists found thermite showing it was used as explosives is not true.

In fact one of the 9/11 truthers wrote up nonsense about thermite being found at the towers which he claimed proved it was used as explosives, yet that 9/11 truther PAID for his paper to be posted in the journal, and it was found that Bentham Open Journal in particular was accepting ANY paper submitted simply to make a profit because whoever submitted the "claims" had to pay for it to be posted.

And btw...


Editors quit after fake paper flap

Posted by Bob Grant

[Entry posted at 11th June 2009 08:36 PM GMT]


The editor-in-chief of an open access journal has stepped down from his post after learning that the journal accepted a fake, computer-generated article for publication. So has an editorial advisory board member of a second journal published by the same company, Bentham Science Publishers.

Bambang Parmanto, a University of Pittsburgh information scientist, resigned from his editorship at The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) after reading a story on The Scientist's website yesterday (June 10) that described a hoax paper submission to the journal. Editors at journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."

"I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ. "I want to lessen my exposure to the risk of being taken advantage of."
...

classic.the-scientist.com...

No explosives, no thermite, only LARGE passenger planes loaded with fuel, and unfortunately with people, and large fires from the jet fuel and the flamable material found in the towers. That plus the shockwaves from the explosions, the rubble that fell on WTC7 which opened a hole which scooped out 25% of WTC7, plus the fires not only from the jet fuel, and the flammable materials, but also from the diesel containers which all the towers had. All of this is what caused the collapses.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JPhish
 


You are incorrect again, the greater the velocity, the more damage occurs. Our own military uses kinetic energy weapons that penetrate armor without using an explosive tip. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dummy...... If the plane was as large as the building, it would not penetrate the building as deep as these planes did.



What a gigantic straw man.

Everything i said was and is true.

What you just said is completely irrelevant.

The faster you throw the brick, the more damage occurs . . . to the brick AND the wall. The larger the brick the more damage the wall takes, but also the "more"damage the brick can (and will) take (because it is larger).

A plane is not a projectile weapon. Comparing it to a bullet is utterly retarded. The parts of the plane with the most penetrating potential are the engines and they are on the wings. The tip of the fuselage would have crumbled like an accordion the moment it impacted the steel structure of the building. The wings themselves would have sheered off. The only thing that would have been able to penetrate the buildings effectively are the engines.

These are facts, that are relevant.

Try it.
edit on 9/28/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
BTW, I have posted the following videos in another thread, and they explain certain facts the 9/11 truthers love to ignore, or forget for some reason.





Some member claimed that melted aluminum doesn't glow like the metal that was seen flowing down one of the towers, but that is not true, and aluminum alloy, what the planes were partially made of, can melt at 548 C which would be about the temperature of the fires.

Picture of melted alluminum.



And here is bronze...



And here is a good link that gives the melting point for many metals and alloys.
www.engineeringtoolbox.com...


Another great website with photos, diagrams and explanations of everything and which debunks the 9/11 myths is.

www.debunking911.com...
edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

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.



You seem to IGNORE the following facts North tower was hit MID ELEVATION by the airdcraft so the core would sustain damage and that high up on the building the core steel was made of thinner steel!

South Tower hit lower down and more to one side fell towards the direction of the MOST DAMAGE!

Both of the above PLAIN TO SEE on any video if you watch.

ALSO to add WTC 7 did not fall in 7 secs as claimed more like 15 -20 if YOU watch the video that shows what happened.

Watch from 2:37 from when the penthouse on the top left till total collapse around 15 secs and the steelwork must have fell away before the penthouse collapse so that would be another few seconds!



You have so called expert engineers on this video claiming 7 secs SO what were they watching!



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Umm....the buildings did withstand the planes crashing into them and they did exactly what they were supposed to do. In fact, they stood for quite a long time before multiple other processes brought them down. What you do not realize is.......are you ready? The building had very large windows and those windows could not withstand a plane crash. You guys keep talking about the steel beams and for the last time, these beams were vertical load bearing beams. Take pizza dough and spin it, tell me if it is impossible for it to break through and around your finger. There were hundreds of beams still intact, laying throughout the rubble. Many were mangled and bent but they were still there. Let's make this easier, a reverse of what happened to the twin buildings. I want you to stand on 1/4 in. thick ice in the middle of a lake, and when you fall through, stay under and join a fish colony. It appears your intelligence is equal to that of a guppy.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

...
A plane is not a projectile weapon. Comparing it to a bullet is utterly retarded. The parts of the plane with the most penetrating potential are the engines and they are on the wings. The fuselage would have crumbled like an accordion the moment it impacted the steel structure of the building. The wings themselves would have sheered off. The only thing that would have been able to penetrate the buildings effectively are the engines.

These are facts, that are relevant.

Try it.


Not really...

Scientists actually made a simulation of the damage more or less the planes would have done to each tower

Here it is again.



And btw, did you forget the videos of that day where we can actually see at least part of the holes made by the planes?

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I am still on the fence on it.. it "looks" wrong, but perhaps someone can answer me this..

most of the force was applied to one side of the building.. kind of like Jenga, the side that is crippled, would apparently be the side that the tower falls on.. These towers did not appear to fall at ANY sort of angle. They collapsed straight down as if there was suddenly NOTHING holding any of it up any more.



The South Tower was damaged more to one side and fell towards that direction the opposite side provided resistance to stop the topple and by that point started to drop vertical.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


I respectfully disagree with your logic.

If the building is falling straight down, with nothing underneath it impeding it's decent, then it would follow the basic principls which you are claiming. However, there was something underneath the falling portion of the towers - undamaged lower levels of the building itself.

The building would not have to be effected a great deal by the lower levels to deviate from a completely vertical free fall.

Now, if we use your explanation and we want to believe that is the fact, then we need to accept the other fact that has to go along with it to make it truthful

That fact is, in order for this building, or anything else to freefall, there would have to be no supporting structure below the collapsing portion of the building that would otherise impede the direction of total collapse. The only way to allow complete free fall is to have a situation where an object can enter freefall and with the WTC we do not have that.

If you lay on the ground, on your back, looking toward the sky. Throw a brick up in the air and it will free fall, until something deviates it's path, such as your head or your hand, etc. When another force is put into play the brick will cease to follow it's freefall trajectory
edit on 28-9-2011 by esteay812 because: tyops



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
If anyone wants to learn the truth about the demolition of the WTC can read all the scientific technical papers written by experts on the topic.
www.ae911truth.org...
BTW, “911 Myths” is a website that supports the OS fairytale and is full of proven pseudo-science.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

The fuselage would have crumbled like an accordion the moment it impacted the steel structure of the building. The wings themselves would have sheered off.


You left out the landing gear in the nose, and the fuel in the wings traveling at 800 ft pr sec.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JPhish
 


You are incorrect again, the greater the velocity, the more damage occurs. Our own military uses kinetic energy weapons that penetrate armor without using an explosive tip. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dummy...... If the plane was as large as the building, it would not penetrate the building as deep as these planes did.



What a gigantic straw man.

Everything i said was and is true.

What you just said is completely irrelevant.

The faster you throw the brick, the more damage occurs . . . to the brick AND the wall. The larger the brick the more damage the wall takes, but also the "more"damage the brick can (and will) take (because it is larger).

A plane is not a projectile weapon. Comparing it to a bullet is utterly retarded. The parts of the plane with the most penetrating potential are the engines and they are on the wings. The tip of the fuselage would have crumbled like an accordion the moment it impacted the steel structure of the building. The wings themselves would have sheered off. The only thing that would have been able to penetrate the buildings effectively are the engines.

These are facts, that are relevant.

Wrong again, you forgot the long aluminum/alloy frame! The frame would have penetrated the buildings before the engines. Give up and go to sleep.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Most of the time what I'm about to say wouldn't matter. Doesn't really matter now, but it's somewhat relevant to your post.

When people say it couldn't have fallen into its own footprint. That's usually enough. But the long version of that story is that it couldn't have fallen into its own footprint at free fall speed like the OFS says.

Theoretically it could have collapsed into its own footprint at free fall, pancaked into its own footprint at LESS than free fall or fallen to the side. But for it to collapse at free fall, the entire structure would have to go at the exact same time. That is different than a pancake and would probably require demolition.

If it pancaked then as each floor fell on top of each other the resistance of tons and tons of concrete and steel below would have slowed the fall.

The top floor falls on the second floor and there's a slight pause as the second floor breaks away. Those two floors fall on the third floor and there's another pause before that floor breaks away. Add up all those small pauses all the way down and you get a speed that should be less than free fall.

The reason they say it would have fallen on its side, doesn't mean it should have fallen to the side. That's just the short version of the story.

The long version is that for it to free fall, it would have had to fall to the side. It would have to take the path of least resistance and fall through the air. Not straight down taking the path of most resistance, falling through floors and floors of steel and concrete that would have slowed the fall.

Theoretically it could have pancaked all the way to the bottom. That's how much weight was there. But it shouldn't have happened that fast. That's the problem.

So, basically the long version is, it could have fallen to the side at free fall or pancaked. But truthers argue that it could not have done both and pancaked at free fall. That would require a complete collapse and that means the entire structure failing all at the same time.

Now we're just debating about what would cause such a thing. Could the airplanes do it? Could they not? and so forth.

Now with that in mind, we are able to see a trick the media has done, but that few, if anyone, has noticed. They never pointed out they were two different things.

The pancake theory was the original story that the media gave first. If you were watching the news in the weeks after 9/11. That's exactly why so many people think it pancaked in the first place. That's why you're asking your question now. But it didn't pancake. It collapsed. And that's a different story entirely.

At some point news media stopped using the term pancake. Right about the time that people pointed out that a pancaking of the towers was impossible.

Now when the media talks about the towers they almost never use the word pancake. They always say the structure gave way or collapsed and act like they never changed their story. But they did, pancaking and giving way aren't the same thing. For it to "give way" that means the entire structure of all three buildings had to go instantly. And there's only so many things that can cause that to happen.

All the while calling truthers crazy for saying that it couldn't have pancaked and just hoping no one noticed the slight of hand. And that's that they know it couldn't have pancaked either. That's why they don't say it anymore.
edit on 28-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




No explosives, no thermite, only LARGE passenger planes loaded with fuel, and unfortunately with people, and large fires from the jet fuel and the flamable material found in the towers. That plus the shockwaves from the explosions, the rubble that fell on WTC7 which opened a hole which scooped out 25% of WTC7, plus the fires not only from the jet fuel, and the flammable materials, but also from the diesel containers which all the towers had. All of this is what caused the collapses.


Please provide a photo of the so called damage to WTC 7 before it collapsed.

You claim that debris from the towers "scooped out" 25% of the building. Please provide some evidence to back up this claim.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Here I am. I will be your witness, since I was in NYC on Sept 11, 2001

There were no holograms, they weren't cleverly crafted government/military holographic images flying into the buildings, they were.....AIRPLANES.


Now, the size of the planes can be questioned, but the fact that planes actually impacted the towers can not be successfully argued, atleast the 2nd plane can't be - well, it can't be argued successfully to me anyway, since I saw it with my own eyes.

The only thing natural about the way the towers fell was that they naturally went where they were intended to go.
edit on 28-9-2011 by esteay812 because: moer tyops



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
...
That fact is, in order for this building, or anything else to freefall, there would have to be no supporting structure below the collapsing portion of the building that would otherise impede the direction of total collapse. The only way to akkiw complete free fall is to have a situation where an object can enter freefall and with the WTC we do not have that.

If you lay on the ground, on your back, looking toward the sky. Throw a brick up in the air and it will free fall, until something deviates it's path, such as your head or your hand, etc. When another force is put into play the brick will see to follow it's freefall trahectory


Except that, once again, the buildings didn't fall at freefall.

Also, for your visualization to be more correct you would have to throw something heavier in the air and allow it to hit your head, such as 400 lbs of bricks.

Try it and see how long your head stops, or deviates the 400 lbs of bricks.


edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



Please provide a photo of the so called damage to WTC 7 before it collapsed


There is no such photo. However there is make believe photos that show no gash but plenty of smoke and shadows. There is no evidence.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
how can debris from the WTC towers scoop out 25% of WTC 7, located 350 feet from the WTC towers?
These youtube debunkers speculate more than the truthers, they present theories that is not seen in the official reports, wtf.......
youtube debunkers make up theories behind their computers, lol



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


I agree. I believe there would be slight pauses, maybe not completely noticeable to us, but enough to cause a devaition in the direction of the fall. What are the chances that 3 buildings fall in such the same, unlikely pattern, all in the same location and all with relative time to one another?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Please provide a photo of the so called damage to WTC 7 before it collapsed.

You claim that debris from the towers "scooped out" 25% of the building. Please provide some evidence to back up this claim.


I actually did better... I provided a link to a website which has several photos of what could be seen of the damage to WTC7, as well as the report that 25% of the tower was scooped out by the falling debris...

www.debunking911.com...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join