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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I like the fact that you're questioning both the truth and what might REALLY be the truth.

1. I've heard rumors that an Israeli company was doing "maintenance" on some of the floors and had ample opportunities to plant explosives inside the building at key points.

2. Have you considered that some type of thermite charge might have been used to bring down the towers since this would have no explosion sound and would melt just about any kind of steel?

3. Another company was responsible for cleanup of the debris. It would have been possible to test the debris for explosive residue and such but the company had the debris relocated and destroyed.

4. Not a single steel tower has ever collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. Look at World Trade Center 7 and all the inconsistencies with it.

5. The towers fell at almost a freefall speed which would have been impossible except through the use of a controlled demolition.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Question I asked myself is why are there claims that the buildings fell at free fall speed for a short duration?
This means that the resistive force acting upwards in the pancake model was missing to slow the progression.
If the pancake theory was true then where is this force?
Do you have an answer for this?

Point # 4 answered. www.youtube.com...

edit on 6-12-2011 by Limbo because: Added points countering claims.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Question I asked myself is why are there claims that the buildings fell at free fall speed for a short duration?
This means that the resistive force acting upwards in the pancake model was missing to slow the progression.
If the pancake theory was true then where is this force?
Do you have an answer for this?

I think that the inner portions of the building began to collapse first, where the steel was seeing the most heat from the fire. Afterwards, the (visible) outer sections of the building collapsed.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Question I asked myself is why are there claims that the buildings fell at free fall speed for a short duration?
This means that the resistive force acting upwards in the pancake model was missing to slow the progression.
If the pancake theory was true then where is this force?
Do you have an answer for this?

I think that the inner portions of the building began to collapse first, where the steel was seeing the most heat from the fire. Afterwards, the (visible) outer sections of the building collapsed.


Was there not an outer mesh also?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Question I asked myself is why are there claims that the buildings fell at free fall speed for a short duration?
This means that the resistive force acting upwards in the pancake model was missing to slow the progression.
If the pancake theory was true then where is this force?
Do you have an answer for this?


No I don't. I proposed questions. Why are people expecting that I have answers? (Anok)
I guess I would underscore that there are "claims" that the buildings fell at free-fall speed, but did they? I don't know. I've heard some say yes and others say, well, not quite.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Issue lies within the post itself, you propose questions already answered, ad nauseam...

Theres ample evidence to help you decide, you either are a "truther", that is, that looks for the truth, or a "fairytaler", that believes that 2 planes hitting 2 buildings brought 3 buildings down, at near free fall speed, through the path of most resistance.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
OK, let's ignore Building #7.... We can all agree that it was a controlled demolition. I'll assume there is no argument about that.

Yes, jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt steel. However, when the planes struck Buildings 1 and 2, the 'gas tanks' would have exploded, exposing the fuel to flame, and thus burning up in a matter of seconds. So, we can rule out that the structures fell due to heat from burning jet fuel.
There have been many other skyscrapers that have been struck by airplanes, burned for much longer periods of time, and still stand to this day. So, we can debunk the 'Official Story' right here.

Planning a demolition of this magnitude is massive, no doubt about that. But think about it this way: The richest and most powerful government in the world would surely have the resources to pull something like this off, without being found out before hand.
As for all the other unknown variables in such a massive demolition, there are many theories out there about them. one would be to simply place the explosives near the top of the building, (assuming the jet isn't going to strike the top 10 or so floors, but below), and place the remaining explosives from about halfway, to the bottom. Leaving 20 or 30 stories untouched.... The weight of the building above, and gravity can do the rest.

Controlled demolition 101.

Why would this be done? I think the answer to that is quite obvious: What's the best way to make money? GO TO WAR.
What's the best way to control a population? GO TO WAR.
What's the best way to blindly allow people to de-populate themselves? GO TO WAR.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Question I asked myself is why are there claims that the buildings fell at free fall speed for a short duration?
This means that the resistive force acting upwards in the pancake model was missing to slow the progression.
If the pancake theory was true then where is this force?
Do you have an answer for this?


No I don't. I proposed questions. Why are people expecting that I have answers? (Anok)
I guess I would underscore that there are "claims" that the buildings fell at free-fall speed, but did they? I don't know. I've heard some say yes and others say, well, not quite.


I don't really know for sure, Some high school teacher (as I recall) did some tests on the collapse and found
that there was a constant force for a small duration of time. I believe the NIST report shows this as well.
Another weird thing were those agents from MOSAD? who claimed on TV they were there to document
the event. That tells me that they had prior knowledge.
Maybe someone could counter these claims?

www.youtube.com...
edit on 6-12-2011 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Limbo
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Question I asked myself is why are there claims that the buildings fell at free fall speed for a short duration?
This means that the resistive force acting upwards in the pancake model was missing to slow the progression.
If the pancake theory was true then where is this force?
Do you have an answer for this?

I think that the inner portions of the building began to collapse first, where the steel was seeing the most heat from the fire. Afterwards, the (visible) outer sections of the building collapsed.


Was there not an outer mesh also?
Yes, that's my point. The construction of the building was such that there were thin (relatively speaking) but wide vertical beams that created the support for the building. There was an inner box of these vertical beams, and also an outside layer, well separated. It is my contention that the inner beams failed first, and the interior 'pancaking' floors caused the outer beam failure.

Just my idea. I am not an engineer, architect or demolition expert, nor do I claim to be. Nor do I expect to convince any truthers, just throwing my idea out there.

ETA: If you watch a video of the Tower collapse, the mast at the top of the tower tilts and drops vertically before the collapse of the exterior walls of the building occurs.
edit on 6-12-2011 by butcherguy because: To add.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I appreciate you questioning the 'other side' as to how this was pulled off but you know what? Getting down to the fine details and coming up empty handed doesn't equate to it not happening.
The nuts and bolts to 'how' this was accomplished is only a guess. How does Copperfield make an elephant disappear in front of a live audience?

People, whistle-blowers if you will, have stepped forward (particularly Susan Lindauer) risking their lives to explain the little they know about how this went down that day.

And it's so ironic because people were begging for witnesses to come forward (because the mentality was: how can all these people keep a gigantic secret quiet all these years....) and now we have the same group of people saying: 'how can these people come forward and not be silenced/killed?"

Listen to Susan Lindauers' explantion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It might not dot all the 'I's' and cross all the 'T's' but it concedes to the demolition theory though.

As far as your query about how it exploded exactly where the planes hit: I suppose you'll have to abandoned your preconceived belief that these were regular passenger planes and consider they might have been remote controlled drones carrying explosives instead. Because the many of the people who believe the three buildings were rigged also believe the two planes weren't ordinary ones too. Just some fuel for thought.

We might not have all the answers but by now we certainly know what DIDN'T happen and that's most of the garbage in the Commission Comic Book Report.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I appreciate you questioning the 'other side' as to how this was pulled off but you know what? Getting down to the fine details and coming up empty handed doesn't equate to it not happening.
The nuts and bolts to 'how' this was accomplished is only a guess. How does Copperfield make an elephant disappear in front of a live audience?

People, whistle-blowers if you will, have stepped forward (particularly Susan Lindauer) risking their lives to explain the little they know about how this went down that day.

And it's so ironic because people were begging for witnesses to come forward (because the mentality was: how can all these people keep a gigantic secret quiet all these years....) and now we have the same group of people saying: 'how can these people come forward and not be silenced/killed?"

Listen to Susan Lindauers' explantion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It might not dot all the 'I's' and cross all the 'T's' but it concedes to the demolition theory though.

As far as your query about how it exploded exactly where the planes hit: I suppose you'll have to abandoned your preconceived belief that these were regular passenger planes and consider they might have been remote controlled drones carrying explosives instead. Because the many of the people who believe the three buildings were rigged also believe the two planes weren't ordinary ones too. Just some fuel for thought.

We might not have all the answers but by now we certainly know what DIDN'T happen and that's most of the garbage in the Commission Comic Book Report.


There were people listed on the planes and there's testimonial evidence from families that they are missing.
I don't buy the drone theory. Then "truthers" claim the families are agents also and it goes on and on.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


I'll give you my take on it. Personally I think the smoking gun is WTC7 but you wish to only address the twin towers, which I find strange as WTC7 wasn't hit by a jet.

anyways.....

controlled demolition is a possibility for the twin towers.

A method?

thermite/thermate added into a paint or sealer placed on the walls and structural points.

the main reason the twin towers seems suspicious isn't just the speed of the collapse, it's the fact that the top half of the building above the impact is supposed to be the weak point. Since the structure below was still intact, what *should* have happened is the top half sliding down and toppling over, which started to happen.

Then things get weird. the structure below completely disintegrates as the top half comes down on it, breaking conservation of momentum in the process.

The only logical way for this to take place is that the core structure was weakened down the entire tower, from impact to the basement.

There are compelling videos people have produced showing a method of using a thermite reaction in a controlled fashion using claps, with a slit directing the force straight into a core I beam, slicing it like butter. there is even a picture from ground zero, a famous one with one of the first responder fire fighters in the foreground, behind him you see a structural beam from one of the towers cut perfectly at a 45 degree angle with melted segments around it indicative of a thermite reaction.

How could they time it? Easy, cell phones and a good vantage point to "document the event".

the timing is also questionable as the second tower to get hit fell rather fast.

See, with "controlled demolition" people think of imploding a building, this isn't exactly what happened as anyone can see.

A logical explanation that should be investigated in my opinion is that the Jets did indeed hit the building, burnt off most of the kerosene fuel in that initial fire ball (video and pictures of people standing in the impact hole waving for help, something impossible if the fires got past 1800 degrees to weaken certified steel.

But the jets were just part of the attack. Timed with the jets, or before, or activated by 5 dancing men seen filming the first impact and cheering, sets off thermite charges placed around the core structure of the building to completely disable the steel framing.

allowing for a gravity fueled collapse.

S gravity fueled collapse can't break the laws of physics, yet this one did. so obviously something has to give, either physics is right, or the official story is right.

If you believe the official story you have to explain how kerosene could burn hotter than is possible, and how an uneven oxygen starved fire (thick black smoke) could possibly weaken the entire structure evenly, and how the basic law of conservation of momentum was broken. An object falling into a building and crushing it can not hit the ground at the same speed as an object falling through air, a steel framed, concrete filled, building HAS to offer resistance, it didn't.

If you don't believe the official story you can safely rely on the laws of physics, but you have some very dark areas that must be investigated.

How can the rigged charges survive the impact and fireball? Easy, all of that was done below the designated point of impact.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Limbo
 




Then "truthers" claim the families are agents also and it goes on and on.



No, the "truthers" don't claim that, some people do and are usually ejected from reputable groups.

People were on those planes, they are dead, and they died a horrific death, anyone questioning that has gone too far into the conspiracy zone and has lost contact with reality.

Why over complicated a simple operation? The hijackers that are still alive is enough of a problem, imagine people supposedly on those planes turning up alive. Why even swap out the planes? That "theory" to me, is much like the pentagon theory, one started by those wishing to discredit the honest research being done on this subject.

Sadly, some well intentioned people are falling for it.

you want "truthers"? Get off youtube and go towww.ae911truth.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo


There were people listed on the planes and there's testimonial evidence from families that they are missing.
I don't buy the drone theory. Then "truthers" claim the families are agents also and it goes on and on.




Don't want to derail this thread and go off in another direction but let me say this: All our 'theories' began when the so-called 'truth' looked questionable.

Do you think we went out of our way to find 'twists' and 'holes' and 'doubt'????

No!

The events presented that morning, in retrospect (because we were all in shock as this was happening) are questionable at best.

The passengers:

Oh okay. It is to be accepted and understood that a man, Mark Bingham, was a 'man of habit' and ALWAYS introduced himself on the phone in his proper name......just innocently said the following (paraphrasing)
"Hello Mom, this is Mark Bingham. The plane has been hijack. You believe me, don't you"

Yup. No conspiracy there.
Let's just throw that on top of the other 'WTF's" on that particular day!

Besides, Flight 93, Mark Binghams, was reported to have landed safely in Cleveland.

So let's just toss out the 'facts' that don't fit the theory and put in fabrication instead.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Someone posted this interesting video.
www.youtube.com...

She says there was suspicions of controlled demolition+hijacked planes before it happened.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Interesting - do you have evidence that he landed?
(I can find the text about him phoning his mum, but I've not found him landing in another location.)
This also could answer phishyblankwaters point about people turning up alive.

phishyblankwaters: Do you have any more names of people who turned up alive and evidence they were indeed on the hijacked planes?


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



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I appreciate you questioning the 'other side' as to how this was pulled off but you know what? Getting down to the fine details and coming up empty handed doesn't equate to it not happening.
The nuts and bolts to 'how' this was accomplished is only a guess. How does Copperfield make an elephant disappear in front of a live audience?

People, whistle-blowers if you will, have stepped forward (particularly Susan Lindauer) risking their lives to explain the little they know about how this went down that day.

And it's so ironic because people were begging for witnesses to come forward (because the mentality was: how can all these people keep a gigantic secret quiet all these years....) and now we have the same group of people saying: 'how can these people come forward and not be silenced/killed?"

Listen to Susan Lindauers' explantion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It might not dot all the 'I's' and cross all the 'T's' but it concedes to the demolition theory though.

As far as your query about how it exploded exactly where the planes hit: I suppose you'll have to abandoned your preconceived belief that these were regular passenger planes and consider they might have been remote controlled drones carrying explosives instead. Because the many of the people who believe the three buildings were rigged also believe the two planes weren't ordinary ones too. Just some fuel for thought.

We might not have all the answers but by now we certainly know what DIDN'T happen and that's most of the garbage in the Commission Comic Book Report.


There were people listed on the planes and there's testimonial evidence from families that they are missing.
I don't buy the drone theory. Then "truthers" claim the families are agents also and it goes on and on.


Lets not forget this small point: EVERYONE HAS A PRICE!



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
I have an open mind. I believe there are unanswered questions regarding 9/11. But I can't yet seem to buy this notion of a "controlled demolition" of the WTC. When watching closely footage of either tower collapsing, it--to me--really does look like a collapse.


Years ago I communicated with a man who said he worked in the WTC and had just left the buildings 13 hours before the attack. He said the columns were the same all of the way down. I asked him if he had X-ray vision?

The columns from the 9th floor to the top on the exterior LOOK THE SAME. But the are hollow box columns. The thickness of the walls of the box cannot be seen from the outside. But the change in WEIGHT could be measured. So why doesn't the NCSTAR1 report tell us the weights and quantities of each different type of perimeter wall panel? What is the big deal about that in a truly scientific analysis?

So how could the lighter and weaker portion of the north tower above the impact zone crush the stronger and heavier 90 stories below and accelerate to come down in less than 18 seconds? A magical collapse simulated in a computer with constant mass and NO SUPPORTS to be crushed takes 12 seconds.

This "looks like" business is over rated.

psik



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo
Even with outer structure intact it still would not fall freely yeah? (Or am I missing something)?
That is correct. It would not fall freely. It would fall at near free fall speeds. The falling floors impart momentum to the floors that they are tearing loose.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join