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.

 

FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

page: 24
14
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
People keep asking the same questions over and over again yet i found some interesting things about the event. One was the location of the ISS and another was the company which carried out repairs on certain floors and also has a major hand in overseas building ventures. I am unsure if i can name but heres a pointer. Dubai and tallest.




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by MaxJohnson
 


I think you're exaggerating the strength of a steel beam, and entirely under-representing the heat of even a normal office fire. Fire is never "cool." If it's burning, it's hot.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything, but having a lack of evidence is not supporting evidence. It is also merely your opinion that the building chunks should have been larger. You have no proof that this is what should have happened.

Overall, I think some of these arguments are rather silly.


Exaggerate? What other material has the qualities of this building product? It's strong, Fireproof, and has been used for the last 80 or so years and not once has it failed nor buckled. Typically when a fire rages out of control the whole skeleton frame is left. It would take a hell of a lot of thermal energy in a SUSTAINED burn (not under an hour) under favorable conditions to produce catastrophic failure. There were also large quantities of water in the plumbing as well which you guys never seem to consider. Think of all that water from severed pipes from standard fixture plumbing, fire protection piping (redundant system) and swamp cooler water at the top of the building.
edit on 9-12-2011 by MaxJohnson because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
They obviously did not put the fire out..... And according to the truthers, the jet fuel burned instantaneously, so what did the sprinklers have to put out?
edit on 9-12-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



so what did the sprinklers have to put out?


The sprinklers in WTC towers were cut by the impact and non functional

Those at WTC 7 were rendered inoperable when the collapse of the WTC towers cut the water mains to the area

The sprinklers functioned for a short time until the storage tank in the building was emptied......



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I think he was talking about the water in the plumbing pipes for stuff like this:






Incidentally, porcelain, stainless steel, tile and walk-in refrigerators don't burn very well, but they seem to turn to dust quite easily.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 



'eyes dont lie'



They do not do they? What would you call an "optical illusion", or a "mirage", or a "magic trick", or a UV ink stamp, or a delusion, fantasy, hallucination, ignis fatuus, phantasm. you get the point I hope

The global Cabal pulled a fast one and most people accepted it because it came from "smart government men" whom they were told to trust with their lives.

The difference between what most people saw or were told is this. They saw what you saw, Plane + Building + heat + fire = building falls down.

and others saw what I saw Plane + building + black smoke = dead fire ... then new equation, WTF building collapsing straight down? WTF WTF, this is NOT normal, WTF NO WAY a Plane can do this WTF...

the first kind of people accepted the first truth, the easy explanation (the one they were fed and believed). And there are others who could not accept that the action / reaction from the plane to the demolition of the WTC was solely caused by the planes.

Consequently the others started looking for possible alternative ways or reasons as to why things happened in the coordinated fashion that they happen. That is why we have "Theories".

Tell you what. If you really think that a little plane took down the towers, have a look at this video. Unless you are totally closed minded, it will get you thinking.


The mind is like a parachute, it works better opened



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by butcherguy
 



so what did the sprinklers have to put out?


The sprinklers in WTC towers were cut by the impact and non functional

Those at WTC 7 were rendered inoperable when the collapse of the WTC towers cut the water mains to the area

The sprinklers functioned for a short time until the storage tank in the building was emptied......


The Water reservoirs are housed on top. (were...) Had the only difficulty been that the pipes were severed, gravity would have taken over and poured SOME water down no?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


1. If the demolition of the Twin Towers were pre-planned, then they must have taken everything into account, including the planes crashing into the towers, in order to set up the explosives. Let's say they had it rigged with technology that allowed them to detonate at whatever floor they needed it to start.

2. I couldn't tell you how, but it's not an impossibility. what seems really impossible is if you look at a picture of the twin towers. They were 110 stories tall. The first tower hit was hit around floor 94-98 which only leaves 16 stories at the most, above the lower portion of the tower that was still intact. When those 16 floors fell, there wouldn't be enough momentum and not enough weight to make the lower 93 stories crumble in pancake fashion. Look at a picture of the towers and you will see what I mean. There was way too much of the lower building still intact to crumble the way it did. The tower was already holding up those floors anyway.

3. Yes it was a large controlled demolition. There were witnesses who worked in the building who heard explosions right before the plane hit the first building.

4. Just because you've never seen a controlled demolition begin at the top of the building doesn't mean that it wasn't one. Why would they set it up to be conventional demo? I've heard that as an excuse why it couldn't have been a controlled demo. "They don't start at the top". Well this one did. It wouldn't need to be a tried and tested technique. They just wanted the towers and building 7 down.

5. How do you know they "rested with assured minds"? It didn't all go perfectly without a hitch. There were several hitches. They took their chances and if you noticed, they went into unbelievable excuse mode to explain away the things that didn't go as planned. They were very sloppy and also the days following, they couldn't keep their stories straight. Rumsfeld say a missile the Pentagon. Again Bush said he saw the first impact on TV before he went into the classroom



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Your first question makes no sense. What makes you think explosives would have to detonate exactly at the point of impact? You could begin the sequence twenty floors below which also answers your second question.

Your third question is about the amount of explosives as a whole making an enormous explosion which is not the case. There would have been hundreds of small explosions which would not be heard at all because the building collapsing would be much louder than an explosion to destroy a support beam or column. The explosions would have been timed to ignite in sequence ahead of the collapse by about a second or less. And, it is not that difficult to muffle sound. Kind of like when you see a person in a movie shoot somebody through a pillow.

A simple answer to your fourth question is the explosions did not begin at the top. Not even close to the top of the building.

The answer to your fifth question is money and there was no "violent inferno". A few floors burned for an hour before the collapse. The buildings were made of steel and concrete. What burned was fuel and furniture with lots of paper.


edit on 9-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Good point Septic. And also, Most of the rubble is projected outwards. How would the buildings continue to collapse if there were no explosives? To collapse as the buildings did is impossible without explosives. Four planes wouldn't have demolished the buildings like that.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Watch how the spire sinks and tilts a little at the beginning of the collapse. What that says is the core columns were cut with explosives which made the entire core from the initial explosion up, sink. The building would then collapse in on itself with the help of smaller explosions. The core columns could have been cut anywhere but more than likely at the base of the buildings. If the core sank a foot or even a few inches it would be like a slide tackle in soccer. The buildings collapse. The initial thump if you will would be like dropping a bottle of beer which lands on its base. The energy would project upwards creating all kinds of fractures in the core of the building. Can you imagine dropping one of those towers with the weight they carry from your lap to the ground? That is how the buildings collapsed. You can't see it because of the facade of the building but the spire tells the story.
edit on 9-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ANGELA11
 


Agreed. Those towers regularly withstood the equivalent force of being rammed by an ocean tanker.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ANGELA11
 


Where did you develop your expertise in explosives and building demolition? What explosives would you have used to clear each floor in under 200 milliseconds?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
When will you wake up from this psy-op dream ? and SE that:

NO plane crashed in Shanksville, - just a smoking pothole in the ground, right?

NO plane crashed in the Pentagon, - just a small hole in the outer wall, (going thru 6 walls further inside the rings)
Before they blew up that same part of the building, as a cover up.
(Don`t even try to mention those small "plane" parts, on the lawn)

NO planes hitting the twin towers, - thin alu "melting" thru steel, - hologram shadows on a clear sunny morning, -
no black boxes, just a small landing gear, and a small engine, (not a 7 ton from a 767)
No real photo of any plane near the towers, - (must have been thousends of cameras pointing at the towers, in the time between WTC 1 and 2)
Just blurry videos in different grayish low quality.
ACARS confirmed planes flying, long after explosion in the south tower, 2`nd.

What a fu...ng lie from the war hungry government.


Stop discussing jet fuel burning, look beyond the scam, and see what TPTB and they`re
Zionist cooperatives, with Mossad as they`re tool, did that day.


See the elephant in the room...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 


So you post a video that.....
1. Someone did a horrible job of trying to remove the airliner.
2. Includes part of an interview with Frank DeMartini, in which he says that he thinks the towers would survive being hit by an airliner. Of course, the last known words of Mr. DeMartini, came as he had ascended one tower to check the damage.........he called his office to say that the tower he was in, looked like it was in danger of at least a partial collapse............. He died a few minutes later as the tower did indeed collapse.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed
 


Ninety some feet wide is a small hole? Not to mention, flight 77 only went through TWO exterior walls.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

edit on 9-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Where did I write that?
You do not need to be an expert to see the buildings were completely demolished. They did not fall over from where the planes hit and up, to damage most of the buildings as they should have. The north tower should have fallen over, if it collapsed to the point of impact. The buildings were demolished to dust and steel with rubble. The collapse should have weakened it's force on the way down as the rubble spilled outwards.
The collapse continued consistently to the ground which is impossible without explosives.
You don't need to know what kind of explosives and the reason you people are still debating about it is because you talk about things like 200 milliseconds a floor. You don't need theories with numbers when you can see what actually happened. Sometimes people get a little too carried away with what doesn't make sense because people are afraid of the truth that shows they were wrong. It's called denial.
edit on 9-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2011 by ANGELA11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANGELA11
 


Now, just HOW is the collapse going to weaken as it adds more mass on the way down? Not to mention the collapses clearly started at the impact points.....



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANGELA11
reply to post by pteridine
 


Where did I write that?
You do not need to be an expert to see the buildings were completely demolished. They did not fall over from where the planes hit and up, to damage most of the buildings as they should have. The north tower should have fallen over, if it collapsed to the point of impact. The buildings were demolished to dust and steel with rubble. The collapse should have weakened it's force on the way down as the rubble spilled outwards.
The collapse continued consistently to the ground which is impossible without explosives.
You don't need to know what kind of explosives and the reason you people are still debating about it is because you talk about things like 200 milliseconds a floor. You don't need theories with numbers when you can see what actually happened. Sometimes people get a little too carried away with what doesn't make sense because people are afraid of the truth that shows they were wrong. It's called denial


OK, so you just feel that things weren't right because they didn't behave like you expected them to. You never actually blew up a structure so you don't know how explosives would be placed or where. The collapse going all the way to the ground would be impossible without gravity. Explosives were not needed.
Are you in denial?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join