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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by beijingyank
 


Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


The questions are very provoking when dealing with the realm of fallacy.

It is not a question of "how." It is a question of "who."

The forensic science is in. It is indisputable scientifically. There is no question the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition because of the forensic science. Super nano thermate is in the dust. This fact blows away the fallacy of "how" and moves the question to "who."


You're telling me that the scientific community is generally in agreement regarding the evidence for a nanothermite controlled demolition of the towers? That it's indisputable because no legitimate scientists/physicists/chemists/engineers have disagreed with such findings nor have offered any possible alternative explanations for the findings? If so, that's incredible information. But it's difficult to believe. The word (or notion) "indisputable" is not one commonly used by those doing scientific research. Most researchers are more comfortable speaking of probabilities, hence I'm always skeptical when I'm presented with such claims.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Don't you have a missile thread to defend?

And try not to forget to take your medication.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by clintdelicious
 


Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


I don't wana be rude but the questions just seem too obvious to be asked which is why you don't see them much

3. The principles of demolition appear to be the same, the size of the building just would mean more explosives, it is easily possible. The reason these kinds of buildings have not been demolished like this is obviously that it is not safe and would cause mass damage to the area. Do you really think it would be that hard to do? It's just a much larger scale than other buildings and since it's an attack they wouldn't have to worry about neatness even if they didn't want to. In the US there is a stupidly large amount of explosives stockpiled, they could take it out over and over and over and over no problem. Do you really think because it hasn;t been done on this scale that they can't? You say that as if to say 'well no one has demolished such a large building before, it must nit be possible! Well ask yourself why its not been done before? Skyscrapers are in major cities and demolishing them probably is not very safe and would cause a lot of damage around the area. Are you serious in thinking that they would demolish huge building like this!??!?!?! Sorry but that question seems mad to even ask.

4. Collapsing from top to bottom is easily achievable and makes sense fro controlled demolition to leave a more 'neat' debris pile, if you are using explosives or incendiary devices you can take out individual points precisely when you want

5. It could have not gone to plan, but why would they care? Their motivation would just be to cause loss of life, chaos and destruction. Why would that mean that they have to complete a perfectly clean job? Why would it matter if it went 'awry'? The evidence is destroyed during detonation/ignition. The plane crash obviously was the cover as for the reason for the collapse (assuming it was an inside job) Also this would be the biggest scam in history tptb have the resources to make it work, there are not many variables that would cause a major problem. Demolition of buildings is a science which is very efficient. The reason demolitions of this sized are not done are not because they can't be done, it would not be a challenge at all to demolish a building of that size, once the supports are destroyed and the buildings structural integrity is undermined the buildings own weight will bring it down easily.

I really don't want to be rude but these questions are very simple and basic questions that you can see answers for in many of the other threads about 9/11.


I don't want to be rude either, but you obviously didn't read carefully my questions, especially #3. How do I know? You insinuated I asked something that I did not, but mostly--you didn't answer the question.

These questions are very simple and basic. Too bad you didn't understand them. Have you tried the thread about the missiles?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   


I love these threads! I've decided to pull it!

EDIT: In the video you can see the firefighters "pull it". I guess that means firefighters can pull down steel structures. (blows on the smoking gun)
edit on 6-12-2011 by litterbaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
What we were privy to on 9/11 were CGI, virtual reality, demolition software
movie-style effects presentations, very similar to this clip taken from independance day.


Why can't people wake up to the fact that we were duped into accepting
generated scenes as reality that day? Lack of research, and fear, i suppose.
9/11 was a televisual HOAX/CON disguising a long in the planning demolition job.
There were few, if any deaths, most 'victims' being computer generated entities
with no basis in reality. Let's get real people!

!.5 Hours Of Proof Of 9/11 Video Fakery


Exposing the con/fraud/hoax : www.cluesforum.info



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Captain Beyond
 


Umm, yes jet fuel can, and will, burn hot enough to weaken steel.


Not in this case. Jet fuel can only weaken steel if it has a sustained supply which in this case it didn't remember it all went up in the fireball when plane hit. All that was left was burning wood and paper which in no way is capable of weakening steel.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Burning wood (which can be used in forges to soften/melt steel) paper, chemicals, a few thousand pounds of plastics (which are made from......petroleum). Plenty of stuff to burn in those buildings...with plenty of oxygen to feed the fires. You can argue it all you want, and it will never change the fact that those fires plus the damage sustained caused those buildings to fall.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by buster2010
 


Burning wood (which can be used in forges to soften/melt steel) paper, chemicals, a few thousand pounds of plastics (which are made from......petroleum). Plenty of stuff to burn in those buildings...with plenty of oxygen to feed the fires. You can argue it all you want, and it will never change the fact that those fires plus the damage sustained caused those buildings to fall.


1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization
And the dark smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire.
Sorry but the wood burning just doesn't cut it not to mention the buildings were designed to survive impacts with planes larger than the ones that hit it.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Except the steel doesn't need to melt. Only weaken.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



remember it all went up in the fireball when plane hit.
It didn't.

Try burning that quantity of fuel in an instant. What about the first hand accounts of unburned fuel running down through the buildings?

Maybe it was holographic fuel.

As far as the combustion temperatures of hydrocarbon fuels, maybe you should tell the sailors in a shipboard fire that the steel deck-plates don't soften and collapse under their own weight in a non-pressurized diesel fuel fire, they can tell you that you are full of crap.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



not to mention the buildings were designed to survive impacts with planes larger than the ones that hit it.
Yes, that's correct. They both survived the plane impacts, I saw it on TV.

They did not survive the subsequent fire though, I saw that on TV too.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by buster2010
 


Except the steel doesn't need to melt. Only weaken.
no it does need to get to the boiling temperatures for some period of time before it weakens but it doesn't have to necessarily melt completely. Regardless the temperatures listed aren't even close to the boiling point

The OS jet fuel story sounds like complete junk science to me... even if the steel weakened the structure the collapse would start off much slower initially unlike what everyone witnessed.. a free fall collapse, not once that day but 3 times. The engineers who constructed the WTC even claimed the building was designed to withstand multiple impacts from 707 jets (which have 4 engines). Skepticism towards the 911 conspiracy theories, while sometimes raising many interesting questions, seem almost silly to me these days but its good to open to everything



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by seenavv
 


It needs to boil? I'm not sure you're right there.

I'm open to any theory with some adequate evidence. But I think the OP makes some good points that people are struggling to answer.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 



but i dont think you understand what he's saying, WTC 7 is enough proof that something dodgy was going on here, and IT WASNT EVEN hit by a plane and it came down,


Not hit by plane.... OK

How about 110 story building hitting WTC 7? Does that count?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



1. Absolutely NO evidence of any kind of explosives. No primer cord, no wiring, no detonators, and NO noises consistent with a controlled demolition....I have witnesses cd's first hand and they are quite distinct.


Know several bomb squad guys who were at the WTC

The bomb squad of our local sheriff dept (Pasaic County NJ) spent 3 weeks at WTC ding search and rescue

Talked to several of them about their experiences - none recall anything remotely like a demolition components

Add in ATF, NYPD bomb squad, FDNY arson investigators, demolition contractors, etc who spent months
crawling over the scene for months and nobody saw anything.....



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Who is this joker kidding?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


You show pictures of the generators (actaully compressors for the HVAC)

Then cut to office pictures

You are aware that the "generators" were placed either in the basement ( there were 7 sublevels in the WTC) or
on specific equipment floors which contained mechanical equipment to run the elevators and HVAC systems

NOT on the office floors



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
lest we forget - thermite/thermate was found plentiful at the site.
there were loud explosions that the first responders have heard.
how does anything collapse straight down - unless the support in the basement has been taken out.
the 47 steel girders holding the buildings up were not anything that hot gas could weaken to the point of failure - if so then point to any past history of any burning building coming down in such a short time.
there were complete building blackouts prior to 9/11 - this is rare - especailly since i work in a building that has never been blacked out - and this is something that would not be permitted. they use the backup generator.
why were the socalled art students given passes and hung out in top floors?

there simply is no way any size passenger jet at any speed would bring these strongly built towers down - especially bring them down so hard that they collapsed there little buddy wtc7 - well just because.

www.newworldorderreport.com...

btw - the architect said... a plane hitting the tower would be like a fly hitting a screen door.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jibajaba
 


You seem awfully certain of all this. And yet you don't feel the need to address the questions in the OP?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Originally posted by ANOK

If the government said it was red you say 'oh yeah it's red'. If a 'truther' says it's red, you ask them to show you the chemicals that makes it red, then you'd want to see the can it came in, then you'd demand a demonstration that it really is red by comparing it to yellow, which you'd use as proof it isn't red at all but brick red, which is different.


Kinda testy aren't you? And making a lot of bold hypothetical predictions about my behavior. I'm just asking some simple questions.


Again who knows? The OS does not make anymore sense just because no one can answer every question you can think of.

How about instead you answer the many unanswered question the OS didn't address? NIST were the ones tasked to explain the collapses not me, or 'truthers'. Ask them the questions. How do sagging trusses put pulling forces on columns? Or is that not a valid question to ask them?


Again--you're getting pretty defensive. How about instead I "answer the many unanswered questions the OS didn't address?" Why--because I shouldn't be allowed to pose any questions unless I have the answers to everything else? WTF? Look--I asked what to me are some of the burning questions (no pun) I'm left with when considering the controlled demolition explanation of the WTC collapse. Seems you're a bit uncomfortable with certain questions.


Neither tower was technically 'imploded', they were too tall and skinny for that. Loud explosives were heard, period, go research. Why that fact has to be continually ignored is beyond me, well wait no it isn't


WTC7 was the tallest building ever 'imploded', and yes it was 'imploded'.


I've yet to see footage of either collapse which was preceded by a series of loud detonations. And why you trying to get all technical on me? "Neither tower was technically 'imploded'"? As if the terminology alters the gist of my question. I guess if you feel threatened it helps to try to make yourself sound smarter--make the other guy appear ignorant. Is your fragile eggshell mind imploding?
BTW, you're wrong. I found no "technical" definition of "implosion" in regards to building demolition other than:

"Destruction via explosives, in such a way that the structure falls onto it's footprint" (Super Structures: The Science of Bridges, Buildings, Dams, and Other Feats of Engineering by Mark Denny)

Wikipedia says: "In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings."



Where have you looked, youtube? There are no rules to say how you have to collapse a building, each one is different. It is not a 'technique'. It is simply the order the explosives are rigged. You know, to make it appear that they collapsed from fire? The towers were not conventional controlled demolitions by any method.


Yes, I only go to youtube for information. And again with the technical language challenges?
It is not a 'technique'? Yeah it is. "a method of accomplishing a desired aim." (Webster's)



Everything is a risk. The first WTC bombing failed didn't it? But how do you know exactly that the plan went perfectly as planned? Did it?


Cop-out answer. And take it easy greasy. I'm just asking questions. You got your truther panties all wadded-up in your ground zero. Try switching to micro-fiber.


edit on 12/6/2011 by ANOK because: typo

edit on 6-12-2011 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2011 by lunarasparagus because: Type-o




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join