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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


According to Laffoley, one of the construction companies involved was Bin Laden Construction (how did everyone conveniently miss that?) and THEY informed the WTC architect that the Las Vegas casinos were "pre-wiring" their building for easier demolition.

1 - I was not aware that there was that much casino construction in the early 60's when the design for the WTC was being drawn up - AND that they were thinking that far ahead to aid in the ultimate destruction of those casinos

2 - Why would a building owner want to incur the extra expense to a building that he would be selling before it's destruction?

Maybe I'm just too cynical.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You seem to be the only truther who gives it an actual try. Although you are wrong about a couple of things, and your model is missing some vital aspects of the actual collapse, I gave you a star for it
.

I numerically checked your collapse time when ignoring the resistance of the supports. I get about 10.8 seconds for the collapse front to reach the ground when the initial mass consists of 15 floors. It seems to me that realistic estimates of the collapse time are between 14 and 16 sections.

This means there was resistance. What truthers require do to convince anyone is show this resistance was too high to achieve the observed collapse time. Whenever I point this out there is a wall of silence. Well, maybe there is a truther shouting "laws of motion" as if that explains it. But no, it needs to be demonstrated that the resistance was too high. And that doesn't have anything to do with laws of motion. It has to do with the strength of the truss connections, and the energy that is required to break them.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
**A note: we can disregard FIRE as a cause for the collapse due to the uniform distribution of debris, video evidence of squibs and prior explosions, as well as witness testimony to that effect, as well as the pyroclastic nature of said debris (which requires an amount of energy WELL in excess of that which fire and the weight of the building, combined, could create). Any building collapse due to fire, even in combination with the massive weight of the upper floors, CANNOT be uniform or symmetrical. Distribution of debris AND the path of failure (collapse) reflect the nature of the damage, meaning that it would collapse in a non-uniform manner, with a gravitational bias towards the point of failure.

OP's Hypothesis: A structurally reinforced steel high-rise can collapse directly into the path of greatest resistance (itself), with only minimal damage to its uppermost floors.

Simple method of analysis:
Take 10 cubical elementary school building blocks. Stack said building blocks on top of one another vertically.
Remove the uppermost block, and then drop it back onto the remaining vertical pile. Repeat. Record results with each successive test.

Determinative analysis:
-Did the entire structure collapse in uniform, direct downward fashion? (WTC 1 &2 YES) (Building blocks NO)
-Does the distribution of debris fit a uniform (circular) pattern? (WTC 1 &2 YES) (Building blocks NO)

The argument needs no more than these two points. That the OP refers to the "Physics" argument as essentially hocus-pocus is hilarious. Apply the scientific method to the evidence available, my friend. You are basically saying that the "Physics" argument, as you call it, is invalid, and for no more reason than your pig is wearing boots.

If you choose to ignore the evidence of thermite, thermate, and super-thermate discovered in the debris; choose to ignore that the scene of a HEINOUS crime had as much evidence removed as possible, as quickly as possible, and shipped to foreign nations for recycling; choose to ignore that interested parties, with both motive AND opportunity, could and DID take advantage of said opportunity: choose to ignore that reinforced structural steel cannot be melted at temperatures created by burning jet fuel, no matter the volume; choose to ignore that FIRES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL DON'T EMIT SMOKE; choose to ignore that the governing party at the time had a vested interest in invading Afghanistan and legitimizing perpetual war on an "-ISM" for the benefit of military-industrial profit, of which they were (and are) a recipient; choose to ignore that the media at the time reported a multitude of on-scene witnesses (including demolitions and fire experts) who declared that many and multiple explosions had occurred in both WTC 1 and 2; choose to ignore that THE BUILDING BLOCKS IN THE EXPERIMENT DID NOT FOLD IN ON THEMSELVES...

...then so be it. Your choice. But it's going to be way harder for your psyche when you find out that, at the very least, the official story is a LIE.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Don't worry that there's no actual evidence for your claims... just keep making them...

How exactly do you think engineers test if a building could withstand a plane flying into them?

I think this was the first test of their theory that the towers could withstand being hit by a plane... and guess what, they failed the test... engineering fails ALL THE TIME.

Add tot hat the fact that a demo would have required hundreds, probably THOUSANDS of visible and audible timed explosions, which don't exist, and your conclusion has no merit.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by GnabeCA
 


there's NO evidence of "squibs. there's NO evidence of timed explosions. There's NO evidence of the planting of explosives.. OR evidence of anyone seeing explosions.

No video evidence of timed explosions. No audio no video.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TechVampyre
Let's not forget building 7.


Well absolutely, let's not. But if you want to say that WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives you also have to prove that too.

So here's your chance.


Actually 7WC was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed anyway. that's a controlled demo. and if 7 was wired, so were 1 and 2. 7 proves conspiracy. the rest is filling in the holes and connecting the dots, but 7 is the linchpin.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I myself believe that something really strange happened that day... however, no REAL proof exists. If it did, then these criminals would all be in jail if they were actually guilty of these crimes.

If I am wrong, why haven't the US citizens demanded an investigation? Why hasn't there been a class action lawsuit from the people to the government in charge for letting this happen?

Either way, it is clear that they are at least guilty of letting something happen they had previous knowledge of. Stop beating the twin towers story to death... its all been said before.

I am a Canadian, so its not really relevant for me to intervene, however, you pay dearly for your government! Just do something about it already!

The known information: It is routine policy and practice for fighter jets to intercept planes if they go off course even by 2 miles. In the year prior to 9/11 there were 67 such intercepts. It's therefore inconceivable that none of the hijacked planes would be intercepted on 9/11.

These guys are guilty. Do something about it before millions more innocent people in the world die. I hold you all accountable for this. If you wont do something about it please stop bringing up the same old rants and raves. Take responsibility.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Isn't there? Really? Have yah looked, bud?

What there isn't evidence of is buildings collapsing symmetrically, ever. At least without the aid of timed, precise explosives (yes, a great many of them, in sequence, just as you say.) Also no precedent for a steel high-rise collapsing due to fire.

So where does that leave us? Look dudes, I'm not saying that the USGOV was for sure responsible, or even complicit. There is only indirect and circumstantial evidence to this effect. What IS for sure is that those buildings were DEMOLISHED, and not by planes and fire alone.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You seem to be the only truther who gives it an actual try. Although you are wrong about a couple of things, and your model is missing some vital aspects of the actual collapse, I gave you a star for it
.

I numerically checked your collapse time when ignoring the resistance of the supports. I get about 10.8 seconds for the collapse front to reach the ground when the initial mass consists of 15 floors. It seems to me that realistic estimates of the collapse time are between 14 and 16 sections.

This means there was resistance. What truthers require do to convince anyone is show this resistance was too high to achieve the observed collapse time. Whenever I point this out there is a wall of silence. Well, maybe there is a truther shouting "laws of motion" as if that explains it. But no, it needs to be demonstrated that the resistance was too high. And that doesn't have anything to do with laws of motion. It has to do with the strength of the truss connections, and the energy that is required to break them.

In addition any demolition to cause collapse is still driven by the same laws of physics once the building starts to collapse. The only way a demolished building can fall faster is if the resistance is lower that means no support at all on every single floor from the bottom to the floor where the plane hit. WOW! In addition there can be no demolition above the floor where the plane crashed otherwise it would not collapse as it did. So we need the pilot of the aircraft to commit suicide and direct the plane at a specific floor as well. (we are now entering silly territory).



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Audio, video evidence, supported by a great many expert architects and engineers. No proof? No audio, no video?
You realize that we convict people for life based on eye-witness testimony, right? Tell me, what incentive did these people have to lie when their world had just been shaken? Watch it:

video.google.com...

Then, just to clarify, watch another:

www.google.ca... FQjCNGZAwrSwpaMJQ_geJBupoNHrdcl6A&sig2=TD_GNesoCMA3aIAy_jgo7A



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Just like you I think the buildings were pulled. But I do not know of any way nor have I read anything that can prove with out a doubt the the towers fell by themselves. If they did fall by themselves then there must have been some major construction flaws. IMO and through the research that I have done, the probabilities of the towers colapsing as they did are slim to none.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by GnabeCA
 


there's NO evidence of "squibs. there's NO evidence of timed explosions. There's NO evidence of the planting of explosives.. OR evidence of anyone seeing explosions.

No video evidence of timed explosions. No audio no video.




You really dishonour your name, ignoring the obvious dozens of hours of footage of people talkign about explosions and all the videos of the towers falling with squibs coming out the windos, but hey, you already told us you were a poor delusional ignorant being that was not interested in looking at real evidence, just the same old: this has been debunked, its not true, and you must be a nutcase, instead of presenting anything to support your claims, wich are lies.
The fact that you are let to roam here after you keep spouting such lies is again, talking about the site and where its gone.

Remember, the more you repeat the nonsense wont make it true.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Don't worry that there's no actual evidence for your claims... just keep making them...

How exactly do you think engineers test if a building could withstand a plane flying into them?

I think this was the first test of their theory that the towers could withstand being hit by a plane... and guess what, they failed the test... engineering fails ALL THE TIME.

Add tot hat the fact that a demo would have required hundreds, probably THOUSANDS of visible and audible timed explosions, which don't exist, and your conclusion has no merit.


Another sign of your ignorance, why dont you go educate yourself about buildings and how they fall, demolitions and how thermite works. Ah nvm, forgot you are not interested in the truth...



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


My Boss put across a good argument and one that is probably part of the puzzle but not the sole reason of the collapse.

There is a lot of history showing the problems they had with the builds of the towers, corners were cut due to funding problems and/or someone wanted to make a tidy profit.

This is nothing new and still happens to it's quite conceivable that there were weak areas in the structure with no fire proofing, allowing for a small fire to turn into a a very hot and large one, even if most or all of the fuel came out the other end in a giant ball of flames.

The weight bearing down on the top would have caused the top floors to collapse down but....there is a big BUT, they would have stopped in the middle somewhere because a force bearing down on something is met with an equal resistance (another opposing force).

But there are other discrepancies, like building 7 but that's another discussion...

End of the day the BS didn't stand up properly - no matter what the cause was, the real reason has been diluted with conspiracy nuts, lying officials and total denial by many others resulting in what we have now, no rest for the people who died that day and those that continue to die as a result of some phantom menace.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
You can't ignore building codes. I am not a professor. But I did however do commercial and industrial electrical construction for 29 years. Most if not all highrise buildings are built with this as a rule of thumb.

Each floor has to strong enough to hold the subsequent (5) floors above it. Meaning strength at the bottom, lightest portion at the top. No way the lightest 1/3 of the building ( above plane strike) crushed down through the strongest 2/3 of the building. Not at the freefall rate at which it fell.

Here's a small experiment for you to try. Get some cinder blocks. They comme in percent of fill. As in how many holes they have. Bigger the hole, lighter the block, more holes lighter the block. They even come 100% fill, meaning solid.

Build a rack to hold blocks in a verticle line straight up. Solid at the bottom, lighter as your tower rises. Now take the top 1/3 of blocks and lift them as high as you want and drop them onto the PATH OF MOST RESISTANCE and see if they crush through the other blocks all the way to the ground.

Please let us know the outcome of the experiment with the blocks. Let me spoil it for ya. It want, it can't, no matter how many times you try. Lighter 1/3 will not crush stronger 2/3, without some help. EXPLOSIVES.

Only way the towers fell the way they did. Is if something was taking out the support of the stronger floors lower down the building. IE= Controlled Demolitions.
edit on 27-9-2011 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AtlantisX99
 


Off topic but valid: Yes, the search button. The good old administrative call-out to posters of a known topic. You, and others who love taking this stance, seem to know nothing about human nature.

New people are coming to this topic all the time who have never considered any of this information before so therefor want to be a part of the conversation. These older threads while invaluable do not included new members even if they start to comment on them.

Rehashing an older, well covered topic in a new manner can bring in new information and new ideas from a newer crop of posters.

Common sense please!

edit on 27-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TommyG
 


Actually we are trying our hearts out. When the people that run your country, run your military, make your laws, enforce said laws, are the ones we are pointing the finger at. It can get a little bad. When MSM makes all who don't accept official story seem like tards.

So give us some time, it will happen one day. We just need to keep up the pressure. As long as they spout the official lie. Somebody will be there to say . BS.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post 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.


Actually no, the people who started this, and continue on, have always stuck to the facts and physics. Other loud mouthed people spew their theories as to" who" and "why", the true "seekers" stick to the "what" and "how".

The reason people like you keep bringing this up is the fact that the most intelligent and knowledgeable "truthers" refuse to give the bogus disinfo theories any time, and it's making you angry, because you already know you can't argue against basic physics, so all you can do is lump ridiculous theories in with the facts to smear the entire thing.

But, as these people make it clear that they aren't pointing fingers, or trying to explain everything, they are merely sticking to facts we know, it's harder for people to smear them.

P.S.

How many of these threads do we need? honestly, how many times do "we" have to explain the same facts to you guys? Every 3rd thread it seems is a "ok stupid anti-american truthers, riddle me THIS" BS fest and it's getting tired and old.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Well obviously the WTC Towers 1 & 2 were made out of Balsa wood. I mean.. who honestly builds a building out of structural steel and concrete? Who builds a 100+ story building to actually stand?


Seriously. All of this information has been posted about 10,000 times here already. If YOU want to learn more about why people don't believe the official story, here is a link to help YOU with YOUR research.

AE911Truth.org

1600+ Architects and Engineers will try and explain it to you. Then if you feel so high and mighty, OP, you can feel free to email them and dispute your impressive knowledge of denial to them. Why come in here asking us to explain it to you, when you have obviously already made up your mind??




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join