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: 28
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by malachi777
 



Again, FACTS are key to all of this. A person has to be able to absorb them. I've just given two examples of peoples that do not absorb facts very well: AGW deniers and left wingers.

Jonnywhite....You had me until this comment above. I am a left winger............lol... Well, not hardcore. I do not believe in global warming. Let me take that back, I believe in global warming, global cooling and globaltravel.net. I get great travel discounts using them.




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I really need to know what people mean when they say it "Collapsed into its own footprint"

Why do people insist it collapsed into it's own footprint? The debris field is clealy larger than the building footprint...


If you actually look at WTC you can see it is mostly in its own footprint. All that other debris is from the towers.

In this pic you can see outer walls sitting on top of the rest of the debris, that is proof that WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint. The outer walls would be under the debris pile if the building fell from natural causes....



These pics show more detail of the the outer walls folded inwards....





That is what is meant by 'in its own footprint'. Now do some work yourself, and see if you can find ANY collapse that look like that, that wasn't a controlled implosion demolition.

The towers didn't land in their own footprints as they are too tall and skinny. Their debris, as you can see in your pics, was spread in a 360d arc around the towers.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If you actually look at WTC you can see it is mostly in its own footprint.



If i actually look at that photo, I see the debris from the collapse of WTC 7 has been cleared out of the street giving the appearance of collapsing into its own footprint.

But then again i'm not a truther, so I can see what is actually there.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
If i actually look at that photo, I see the debris from the collapse of WTC 7 has been cleared out of the street giving the appearance of collapsing into its own footprint.

But then again i'm not a truther, so I can see what is actually there.


So What? I'm sure they did.

They didn't put the outer walls on top of the rubble pile though did they? The cleanup was not responsible for the building not falling onto other very close by buildings was it?

But then again I'm not an OSer, so I can see what is actually there, outer walls being where they would not be if it was a natural collapse.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


I have seen stuff happen that can take your breath away, so don't lecture me on what i do or do not know.
The dynamics of the collapse is quite clear, it could not have happened because of jet fuel fires, if you look closely, you will see that nearly all of the kerosine went up in the first 30 seconds, so what melted steel, & what pulverized the floors below (at 3 key points) to enable free-fall speed?
I'm through with this thread, too many people in denial.................



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

That is what is meant by 'in its own footprint'. Now do some work yourself, and see if you can find ANY collapse that look like that, that wasn't a controlled implosion demolition.



I am doing work myself, you dolt. Why do you think I'm here asking questions and doing research?

No need for you to act like you're superior and have all the answers.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by malachi777
 


Not true, concrete and steel have almost exactly the same coefficient of expansion.
This theory is weak.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The whole point is moot.
Take a huge can of kerosene, spread it around, light it, blow air on it, add any plastic you like.
Now throw a thick lump of ANSI construction steel on it.
Let me know how long it takes to melt.
I'm outta here



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


I have seen stuff happen that can take your breath away, so don't lecture me on what i do or do not know.
The dynamics of the collapse is quite clear, it could not have happened because of jet fuel fires, if you look closely, you will see that nearly all of the kerosine went up in the first 30 seconds, so what melted steel, & what pulverized the floors below (at 3 key points) to enable free-fall speed?
I'm through with this thread, too many people in denial.................


What melted the steel? Nothing, but the imact of the jet severed and weakened some supports and the resulting fire weakened the steel. Even if "nearly all of the kerosine went up in the first 30 seconds", that 30 secdonds was long enough to set everything on those floors on fire.

The top floors pulverized the floors below, and it's been proven that they didn't fall at "free-fall speed".



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I am doing work myself, you dolt. Why do you think I'm here asking questions and doing research?

No need for you to act like you're superior and have all the answers.


So where are your pics that show a building in its own footprint from a natural collapse then?

If you've done the work then why didn't you present it, hmmmmm?

BTW doing research doesn't mean logging onto 911myths. Do some research on the laws of motion, and learn how to apply those laws correctly, and you will see why I act like I have all the answers. The laws of motion is the answer, to believe the OS you have to not understand those laws, or simply ignore them.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But then again I'm not an OSer, so I can see what is actually there, outer walls being where they would not be if it was a natural collapse.


So where would the walls end up in Truther World and how do they get there.

Be sure and use lots of Truther Physics, I love Truther Physics.

I finally figured out that in Truther World....drag (resistance) is apparently accumulative and permanent.

After an object gathers enough drag to equal its own weight it stops and can never be moved again.

This is the reason why the buildings should not have collapsed in Truther World ....Right ?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I am doing work myself, you dolt. Why do you think I'm here asking questions and doing research?

No need for you to act like you're superior and have all the answers.


So where are your pics that show a building in its own footprint from a natural collapse then?

If you've done the work then why didn't you present it, hmmmmm?

BTW doing research doesn't mean logging onto 911myths. Do some research on the laws of motion, and learn how to apply those laws correctly, and you will see why I act like I have all the answers. The laws of motion is the answer, to believe the OS you have to not understand those laws, or simply ignore them.


Yes, that is one way to research things, along with other sites (including this one). I will not bother trying to discuss the topic with you, since you are superior to mortal men and already know everything. Unfortunately, my research is still ongoing, so I don't have pictures for you. Now kindly # off.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
What melted the steel? Nothing, but the imact of the jet severed and weakened some supports and the resulting fire weakened the steel. Even if "nearly all of the kerosine went up in the first 30 seconds", that 30 secdonds was long enough to set everything on those floors on fire.

The top floors pulverized the floors below, and it's been proven that they didn't fall at "free-fall speed".


The impact of the planes could not have taken away resistance of the lower floors.

The towers fell at close to free-fall speed. But regardless the speed of the collapses is irrelevant, the fact that collapses were complete, and floors were not stacked up in the footprints is far more important. That proves that mass was being lost during the collapse, and resistance was removed ahead of the collapse wave. Ke of the falling floors would be lost as soon as they impacted the static floors. Every time something collides with something else Ke is lost to resistance, heat, sound etc.

The 3rd law of motion tells us that when objects collide the forces are equal on both objects, and the one with the most mass wins. Regardless of velocity. Or 'dynamic loading', an argument the OSers seem to have dropped?

15 floors can not crush 95 floors to the ground. A small mass can not destroy a larger mass.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AngryAlien
What melted the steel? Nothing, but the imact of the jet severed and weakened some supports and the resulting fire weakened the steel. Even if "nearly all of the kerosine went up in the first 30 seconds", that 30 secdonds was long enough to set everything on those floors on fire.

The top floors pulverized the floors below, and it's been proven that they didn't fall at "free-fall speed".


The impact of the planes could not have taken away resistance of the lower floors.

The towers fell at close to free-fall speed. But regardless the speed of the collapses is irrelevant, the fact that collapses were complete, and floors were not stacked up in the footprints is far more important. That proves that mass was being lost during the collapse, and resistance was removed ahead of the collapse wave. Ke of the falling floors would be lost as soon as they impacted the static floors. Every time something collides with something else Ke is lost to resistance, heat, sound etc.

The 3rd law of motion tells us that when objects collide the forces are equal on both objects, and the one with the most mass wins. Regardless of velocity. Or 'dynamic loading', an argument the OSers seem to have dropped?

15 floors can not crush 95 floors to the ground. A small mass can not destroy a larger mass.


The way I understand it, is like this. The "top" (factor of "10") collapsed, and crashed into the floor below. The floors below the "top" were separated, and have a factor of "1" and acted as "1" floor. As the top continued to collapse, each floor below became part of the "top" mass, gaining "1" from each floor, while all remaing floors still only have a factor of "1". So in the end, we have a huge mass crushing down on 1 floor, which is how a progressive collapse works. That's where I'm at right now, but there's plenty more to learn...

**Note** this applies to WTC 1&2, not 7. 7 is very suspect to me on the collapse.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


So these (roaming) fires that never get hotter than 900 degrees could melt steel at 1600 degrees? (source;sheffield university) and while you are there, check out the structural integrity of this type of steel at these temperatures.
Don't try to preach to the preacher.
There was a whole lot of extra energy involved, and still only one possible answer.....
I have said what i have to say, many people have died, and people have died who exposed the scam.
Enough said, i think.
ETA; Black smoke=oxygen starved fire=low temperatures.
edit on 29-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'm sure the view is shared by a lot of OSers that CT's are paranoid delusional at best. While it's true that they will move on to the next shinier conspiracy, deep inside they will see the truth eventually and will lose steam. Same goes for OSers. We are all the same. Pick a side. I'm right.

What I think you need to understand about CT's if you don't already is that once you read about things like MkU1TR@ and that it was even publicized first in 1975, and brought to trial, and continues to exist today doing black programs we'll not likely find out for another 40 years or so, you become suspicious of what these programs are actually doing underneath our noses and feet.

So this doesn't mean it's the governement. It means it's the shadow governement. This gives the visible government Plausible Deniability on any project inquired into and explains why we wouldn't have seen explosives strapped to columns inside the buildings as people were going about their work.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

"And so on.. Most of the floors were probably overloaded with weight. Most businesses push everything to the limit. Anyway, none of this explains WTC7 but it explains WTC1&2."

"There is a reason that the 9/11 conspiracy movement isn't bigger, especially for WTC1&2. The reason it isn't bigger is because the official explanations are satisfactory."

This is what I was talking about in my earlier posts. Thank you Jonnywhite for this example. Hope you don't mind me using it. I'm just looking for a definitive argument about WTC7. If we can't put a period on the end of that sentence, the whole argument is in the air still and is not solved. WTC7 is really black and white. The other buildings not so much as 7. If WTC7 is guilty, then 1 and 2 are guilty by association. Then you can't say, "Yea I think it was a set up with #7, but you Truthers are crazy about 1 and 2 being controlled! Pfft!" Do you see how that is a moot point?

You don't even have to say it's guilty. Just agree that MAYBE WTC was controlled demo, unless you have definitive proof otherwise. And this could lead to another investigation that is independent and has different investigators than the ones from the first two investigations which used the same people in both instances.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by baboo
 


Baboo, no matter how thoroughly I explain the process of structural failure, buckling and refracting of steel beams, the speed of the planes, etc, you conspiracy theorists will never agree with me or anyone else due to your paranoia. Do I believe in conspiracies? Absolutely! What you need to understand is I know a lot more than what you think. In fact, I have studied building construction, and more importantly, sociology and the science of the mind. My passion for sociology stems from living with a brother who is a hardcore conspiracy theorist. I learned so much about the minds of conspiracy theorists and they all have many characteristics in common. I am going to get a lot of flack for this, but I feel a need to be painfully honest. Conspiracy theorists have a great deal of paranoia and have a need to feel in control. They tend to use illogical thought processes(filling in the blanks), to give them a sense of understanding of the world around them. Many are arrogant, have difficulty making or keeping friends, staying employed, etc... When they feel they are losing control, they will always bounce around to other subjects and/or ask for evidence. When the evidence is shown, they move on to another area of the conspiracy and almost always...begin berating those who show them the facts. The berating begins because their belief process is being challenged and their control is being scooped out from under them. You take a steak bone from a dog and he will bite. Conspiracy theorists always turn easily explainable world issues with missing pieces of the puzzle and add their own ideas and state them as fact. They explain their views as fact when they in fact, are not. Perfect example, you say an airliner cannot fly near 600mph at the level these planes were when they impacted WTC 1 and 2. Well my friend, they can! Analysis shows the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph.The amount of turbulence and stresses on the planes would be extreme but the hijackers did not decide on having a comfortable, relaxing flight as they were focused on steering the planes into those buildings.

I and others throughout this thread, have been attacked by many of you. We have been called retarded, stupid, idiots, uneducated etc... Naturally, when this was done, we attacked back...this is human nature. This is my final post on this thread, so feel free to look for me on others. I will happily be giving my opinions, proven facts and acceptance of being berated by you and others.

Oh and by the way, I do not believe conspiracy theorists are idiots, many are very intelligent individuals. I just feel their desperate yearning for acceptance could be put to better use being out in public, meeting others and realizing that all of us have a conspiracy theorists character within us. The difference is, we see the world from all angles, not from inside a box.



Well, when you supply your credentials indicating degrees and experience in both building construction and sociology then I'll be the first to apologize for doubting you. Until then let me be the first to say that you have no understanding of building construction that is indicated by your posts. You like to come off as a wise, folksy, intellectual but it doesn't work. This event is the single most devastating occurrence in our country in recent memory. You, like many others, fear having to face the fact that the world you feel comfortable in is not as it appears. Denial is a pitiable condition from which to suffer. I'm confident that the truth will come out. When it does I imagine you and many other deniers will spend their remaining days claiming it was all a conspiracy by the conspiracy theorists.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
The whole point is moot.
Take a huge can of kerosene, spread it around, light it, blow air on it, add any plastic you like.
Now throw a thick lump of ANSI construction steel on it.
Let me know how long it takes to melt.
I'm outta here


Stay out my friend, because not once did I say the steel melted! Is only takes 600 degree weaken or warp if it is sustaining extraordinary amounts of weight. I KNOW THAT FOR FACT AND THIS I WROTE! This is a perfect example of theorists, you switch our words to make them fit your twisted views. HAHAHA



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Here we go again! Twisting our words! When you multiply planes damaging the above support beams, with high heat due to fires, plus damaged concrete and finally, gravity. Your solution if failure and collapse!




top topics



 
17
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join