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: 38
17
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Varemia
 


It makes no difference to me what people believe. I DO RECALL hearing this on more than one occassion and I think the petronas towers in malaysia as well taiwan 101 have them built in. NOTHING scary AT ALL about this cause I am sure the people who install them know what they are doing.

Thanks for the discussion. Call me a liar. I don't care...........


I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling you wrong.

The Petronas towers had a bomb threat at one point and the tower was searched by the bomb squad.

lubbockonline.com...

And it's Taipei 101, but it has no mention of explosives anywhere.

en.wikipedia.org...

Where the heck are you getting such false information from?




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

An Excerpt from the statement of Robert L. Parish Sr.

On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down.

Please see Christopher's website-
algoxy.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   




BTW that excerpt can be found on youtube by watching the videos there........


I am not saying I am 100% sure this is true, BUT it does sound convincing!



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I DO RECALL hearing this on more than one occassion and I think the petronas towers in malaysia as well taiwan 101 have them built in. Nothing scary at all about this cause I am sure the people who install them know what they are doing. And they would not corrode if installed in concrete, just like rebar does not corrode.


You're going to crash and burn if you don't get over yourself and admit you were wrong about explosives built into the towers. This has got to be the dumbest theory on the books. You're headed down a rabbit hole.

I'm just sayin': this way lies madness.

Look at it from this angle: like you said, bombs built into the building in the sixties does not prove an inside job. So why wouldn't the gov't/ nist/ fema just say that's what happened? fifty percent off all truther arguments would be dead in the water.

Anyway, get some common sense or something. Tall buildings are not wired to blow upon construction. That is not a safety feature, period.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Look at it from this angle: like you said, bombs built into the building in the sixties does not prove an inside job. So why wouldn't the gov't/ nist/ fema just say that's what happened? fifty percent off all truther arguments would be dead in the water.


I have no idea why. Just watch those videos!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


So you're saying that the only proof is the statement of a guy who said a guy told him so? Where are the remains of the charges or the records of them being placed? If they were so secret, why does anyone even know about them? Why would they be secret?

It just makes no sense. Also, the video on that site which is supposed to demonstrate the explosive sequence was altered that way. The original is roaring and yelling by the people who were running. Some other versions have cropped up as well which crop in screaming and such from other locations to add more "credibility," but all it does is make it more suspicious, since the original video was around for so long.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Oh I understand more than you would like me to understand.


Wrong. i want you to understand the physics so that you can understand the event.


15-20 floors CANNOT take down the 80 floors beneath them. Not enough weight/mass!


Bring the numbers to prove your point.


If the damage to those upper floors was substantial enough then those damaged floors would have severed off from the undamaged floors and toppled over into the streets of manhattan.


Drivel


cause a lot tall rise buildings have them pre-installed just in case for emergencies.



Madness.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by subfab
the rapid rate of fall by both towers is another reason for people to question if there is more to this than what we are being told.



Here's the simple answer to your incredulity.

Nobody posting in this forum has the life experiences to with their "gut feeling" about how wrong it looked to them personally.

Just deal with that fact.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Those videos are terrible. There was no concrete core. There are tons of photos of the construction, and none show a concrete core. Even the video shows clearly the 'massive box columns' that constitute the structural core. He explains that he got his information from a movie that apparently no one can find a copy of. I call BS on that. There are plenty of photos and video of the twin towers under construction.

Find me a knowledgable individual with verifiable credentials who says that tall office buildings like the ones under discussion are built with explosives in them "just in case we need to blow them up on short notice", and I'll put a dunce cap on my avatar. I'll take any structural engineer or architect who has worked on skyscrapers, speaks english, and has verifiable credentials. Just one.

Edit: PS, you owe me an apology for wasting 20 mins of my life watching those videos.
edit on 10/14/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: edited as shown



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Oh I understand more than you would like me to understand. 15-20 floors CANNOT take down the 80 floors beneath them. Not enough weight/mass!


There is enough mass. The floor connections are designed to hold the mass of a single floor. It is not that hard to figure out what happens when you drop the mass of at least 15 floors on it. The floor connections would fail.


If the damage to those upper floors was substantial enough then those damaged floors would have severed off from the undamaged floors and toppled over into the streets of manhattan.


That would have happened because you say so? Or do you have anything to back this claim up?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Recently it seems to me that 9/11 Conspiracists have retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers. They brush aside the discussion of a grander conspiracy because the mechanics of the tower collapse are inherently suspisous. Any other argument is trumped by the fact that the towers cannot - simply cannot - have collapsed in the manner that they did.

So I would like to hear, in brief precis, why the collapse is impossible. Describe to me why, in simple terms, it cannot have happened without explosives.


In 1945 The Empire State building was crashed into by a plane , they thought about this when designing the twin towers , and i`ll tell you now , those buildings were designed to withstand such a collision and stand for hours on end.

All three towers fell too fast , 7 wasnt even touched , the concrete from the towers turned to dust , the steel girders had clean cuts on them , there was melting steel, the jet fuel burnt up on impact, what melted the steel ? in so little time ? thermite ? witnesses heard explosions , most witnesses interviewed at the scene where failed actors (proven) , witnesses who spoke of / threatened to speak of the truth , mysteriously died, most of them "commited suicide" ............ c`mon , wake the fcuk up.

The OS was a joke , have the scary black men with beards ever done anything like that before / after "911" ??
The truth is ........ you dont want to accept just how gullable you really are as a nation.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


They only fell too fast according to a couple of truthers with no or little engineering background. Nothing that should be taken seriously by anyone. And molten steel has never been proven.
edit on 14-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Thats because they cleared ground zero pretty quickly ..... and alot of engineers have explained that the buildings fell at a "free fall" speed - they went with gravity, nothing stopped them ....... what about those huge centre columns ? what happened to them ? ( no ...... there was no bombs built into them in the 60`s
) Alot of buildings , towers taller / smaller / thinner / wider , than the twins, have burned for 6 hours ... 8 hours ... yada yada..... now , the impact of each 747 , immediatley burnt up the fuel onboard, the fires where contained on the levels effected , ( the building was designed that way ) , and there was no reason , no reason at all for the top floors to completley obliterate every floor beneath them. No other building in history has ever fell like that .. at that rate ... without controlled demolition.... if the buildings collapsed then they would have been in big .. HUGE chunks of rubble and twisted steel ..... those towers fell straight down onto their own foundations and had no overflow onto the surrounding buildings / streets...... it was controlled demolition ..... one dude doesnt give it much credability since he`s been an actor most of his life but Jesse Ventura was a trained demo expert and even he insists it was controlled .... i personnally think hes a bit of an idiot but thats just my opinion on the fella , atleast hes got the balls to ask the questions no one wants to answer .... questions such as -> why did NORAD stand down ?

watch this vid , cant find the rest of the conference thingy , but i`ll try , the whole thing is on for ages but well worth the watch.

External Link : (sorry , dunno if the mods will delete me reply for sending yall to youtube ... hope not )

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


I don't really see the relevance of your uneducated opinion. Besides the fact that you have a couple of things wrong it doesn't really mater what you say if you can not back it up with physics (meaning actual calculations).



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thats not what im suggesting at all , im saying , if the collapse was legit , when the top of the tower tilted in collapse it would have continued to fall as a whole , the towers would have been in big old scary chunks of concrete and steel...... and if it was a legit "pancake collapse" there would have been a "pancake".
Watch the vid i provided a link to, checking my H.D for the full conference, ive got it somewhere, its in depth and worth the watch.

oh ... and ... here
-> www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



edit on 14-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


It seems you agree that explosives brought down the twin towers yet laugh at the idea that they were built-in to the original structure. Please tell how the hell could soooo many explosive charges be set at the last moment, or even days in advance of such a huge demolition, with no one figuring it out


Do you know much prep work it would take and how many tons of explosives? How many people involved.

Hint: It takes almost a month of work to bring down structures 1/10th the size of WTC and I am not kidding you.

Get a clue people. You are making the truther movement look more silly then it needs to be!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia
 


Thats not what im suggesting at all , im saying , if the collapse was legit , when the top of the tower tilted in collapse it would have continued to fall as a whole , the towers would have been in big old scary chunks of concrete and steel...... and if it was a legit "pancake collapse" there would have been a "pancake".
Watch the vid i provided a link to, checking my H.D for the full conference, ive got it somewhere, its in depth and worth the watch.

oh ... and ... here
-> www.youtube.com...
edit on 14-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)


That's only if the lower tower were completely solid like a giant block of steel and concrete. This is not the case. As the top section begins to fall and tilt, it crushes and breaks connections very fast on the floors below, which subsequently hit the floors below them. The support for the pivot is thus lost, and though the upper section will continue to rotate, it has no lateral momentum anymore. Here, I'll show you what I mean in a youtube video... just need to get my camera out and show you what I mean. (it's a basic physics principal)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


It seems you agree that explosives brought down the twin towers yet laugh at the idea that they were built-in to the original structure. Please tell how the hell could soooo many explosive charges be set at the last moment, or even days in advance of such a huge demolition, with no one figuring it out


Do you know much prep work it would take and how many tons of explosives? How many people involved.

Hint: It takes almost a month of work to bring down structures 1/10th the size of WTC and I am not kidding you.

Get a clue people. You are making the truther movement look more silly then it needs to be!


i`m sure i heard a mention of work being done in the wtc , maintenance or repairs or new air vents , im not sure , cant remember what exactly, but as stated by another poster, placing bombs/demo charges into the structure as its being built , is not a smart idea , and in ... what was it ? 1985 ? i very much doubt they were planning on usint the wtc as a false flag ...... i could be mistaken, but im going with plain old dirty tricks , untill someone provides proof the buildings were rigged during construction.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...


Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join