Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

page: 5
137
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
John Skilling, however, was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, and in 1993 in a Seattle Times interview said the following,


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

What Frank Demartini said, despite what his actual job was, is therefore still valid.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by litterbaux
Pulling means to demolish using explosives


care to provide a valid source for that claim?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
What Frank Demartini said, despite what his actual job was, is therefore still valid.


No, it was proven false. remember these?
listverse.com...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Death rays and elves have the same evidence as demolition. Are they all stupid theories?

The 'laws of physics' appeal doesn't work if you cannot explain what and how the laws were violated. Explain, exactly, how WTC7 was exempted from the action-reaction law.

Explosive to completely clear each floor in the time required would have been more that the random noises heard on the videos. Using enough explosive to turn concrete into powder is unrealistic. Do any of the demolition proponents have any idea at all how demolitions are done? Do any realize how much explosive would be required to pulverize that amount of concrete or where it would have to be placed?
Of course not. Had that been done, we would not be arguing about demolition, we would have video evidence and the glazers union in Manhattan would still be replacing windows.
In the statement: "Even if this was true, collapse initiation and therefore the collapse itself would not be symmetrical because the building sustained asymmetrical damage. This isn't even high school physics, this is just basic common sense. Then the gravitational collapse would not have been at free-fall speed, because as floors and material within the building at the point where the collapse was initiated interacted, the building would slow down" what building are you referring to? Are you shifting gears from the ‘laws of physics’ to ‘common sense?'
Yes, demolitions can also go exactly as planned, but none of the proponents has even been able to suggest a plan. That they cannot means that they are hardly experts. They are poseurs taking advantage of those who don't understand demolitions but fervently wish for them.
As to the collapse times, NIST had the time wrong also. They may have corrected it, since. The free-fall times for the towers are a little over 9 seconds. 13-16 second times are not 'almost freefall' as has been claimed. Of course the collapse will accelerate. That is what happens in a gravitational field. The amount of energy required to destroy the floors and pulverize concrete and drywall is accounted for in the extra time it takes the buildings to collapse.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
OMG, it's 2012, you're not all still going on about "Controlled Demolitions" and "Collapses" are you? Seriously?

At any rate, it's a new year and so I'm trying to look at 9/11 again with fresh eyes after taking Christmas off.

What occurs to me now is a thought, and that is, that the popular 'slips' of the tongues, i.e. "Pull it.", "Flight 93 shot down.", "Missile." were no such unconscious accidental slips at all!

Take Lucky Larry's infamous and much quoted/discussed "Pull it."

Let's say the towers were not Controlled Demolitions at all and that therefore looking for the evidence of it would prove futile. Why then that's perfect you see? You know it wasn't Controlled Explosives so you can throw in a Demolition term like "Pull it" 'by accident', by careless mistake etc. But, not really. It's perfect. No one is ever going to find any evidence of CD so if you let it 'slip' it just looks like that's what it REALLY was, when in fact it was no such thing... Clever, very clever. No?

I mean, why just assume it's a 'slip' (as everyone thus far has done AFAIK) and not that it was intentionally said?

Now you're going to ask me, "Well, if it wasn't Controlled Demolition, why try to indicate that (ultra cleverly) if the Official Story says 'Gravity Collapse'." Right? Why?

Why try to muddy it with a slip? A slip that clearly leads in the direction of CD?

How many of you think, or have ever even considered the possibility, that Lucky Larry said "Pull it" on purpose?


Cheers, and Happy New Year!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 
Your link provided is unrelated to the events of 9/11 and is a top ten list of engineering disasters. I would have a much easier time responding to you if your "proven false" comment made sense or was relevant to the engineering of the World Trade Center. Are you saying WTC 1 & 2 was an engineering disaster? Please elaborate, thanks.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
Are you saying WTC 1 & 2 was an engineering disaster?


What makes you apparently think people who design and build buildings never get it wrong?

also the claims that the WTC towers could sustain multiple jet hits was proven to be just silly.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


TupacShakur,
I want to thank you for an outstanding thread with credible sources.

For the naysayers in here I don’t see your “sources” for verifying most of your opinions, such as there were no explosion, there were no remote control aircraft, and there was no demolition at the WTC and so on…
edit on 14-1-2012 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
such as there were no explosion, there were no remote control aircraft, and there was no demolition at the WTC and so on…


you "forget" how the real world works,

"Those making silly claims have to back those silly claims up"

Which truthers are unable to do, so all they can do is make sillier and sillier claims about 9/11 not based on any facts at all!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

Excellent thread, Tupac. You evidently put a lot of work in to it, and it does not go unnoticed.

Regardless of the amount of evidence presented, many will still refuse to believe what they see. Kudos for delving into the psychological aspects of denial, as well.

This subject has been and will most likely always be a divisive one; some will continue to believe what they were told, no matter the strength of opposing viewpoints, while others will question and realize that it simply does not seem to add up.

Respects to the opinions of all, as none of us really know, no matter how many times this subject is debated. I would hope that we could all remain curious, for that is how true progress is made.
edit on 14-1-2012 by VariableConstant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Even Controlled Demolition Inc. must chuckle when people claim this can happen without explosive help (oh wait they did refer to Wtc beams oddly in one episode).

A Weedwhacker would do a better job debunking than these illogical attempts...

Ignore all evidence and go for fantasy all you want sir.

And Remember, thinking changes everything!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Ignore all evidence and go for fantasy all you want


That is exactly what the "truthers" do, as is seen here.



And Remember, thinking changes everything!


Perhaps one day truthers will start thinking and realise how silly their conspiracy theories actually are!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
It is just an isolated event.. There is no connection to the Patriot act, NDAA, the Fed, and the change from a Republic to Tyranny.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Possibly the least logical answer ever. It is an investigator's job to go down every avenue to find out what the actual cause is. Disproving the author's idea is not relevant to the physical evidence which the author shows. Further, you talk about physics and laws.. Newtonian possibly. Quantum mechanics allows for many of the physical events portrayed by the author. Dr. Judy Wood has done the most comprehensive forensic analysis. Check it out. Also, all of your conclusions only work in a world where the speed of light is constant.. I guess the most recent papers from Cern stating the speed of light might not be constant does not help your argument.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Thanks OP for the awesome thread. I'm not educated enough to argue the 9/11 story with most people on here, im glad your taking care of it.

9/11 is what opened my eyes to "conspiracy theories" There are plenty of those, but 9/11 is what i consider, conspiracy fact. I try to look at both sides and only one thing stays constant, the official story is a lie (i dont know why), and if they need to lie and cover up in the official story, what are they hiding? But thats just a foot in the rabbit whole.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 



you "forget" how the real world works,

"Those making silly claims have to back those silly claims up"

Which truthers are unable to do, so all they can do is make sillier and sillier claims about 9/11 not based on any facts at all!

Thank you for acknowledging me as a Truther it is an honor.
Your claim is your opinion and you do not speak for the Truth movement. The fact is the OS is a silly lie and if you don’t believe that then what are you supporting (you don’t know?)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

....remember the moment that it finally clicked for you? It took me three days to find reality again as I had to re-evaluate everything .....


Deep down inside we all know it was an explosive demolition. That's what we saw. We all know the mainstream media are abusive traitors who'd dance on our graves smiling in their ridiculous 'I'm telling you the news' costumes. Everything we've been told in our entire lives becomes suspect once we allow it to 'click' for us. Thats why so many people are desperately deceiving themselves and refusing to look at the massive discrepancies between the official explanation and the evidence.

Three days? You were lucky...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


It is always possible to find some people who will subscibe to improbable theories. AE9/11T represent a miniscule fraction of architects and engineers in the US, let alone in the world. I notice the presenter of the AE9/11T clip is Richard Gage who is a well deserved laughing stock after his ridiculous cardboard box demo supposed to be representative of the Towers.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, over 140,000 membership, does not subscribe to controlled demolition :-

www.asce.org...

Nor does a single professional engineering association anywhere in the world.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur


NIST is basically telling us that the building below it ceased to exist for the first few seconds of the collapse. But unfortunately for them, universal physics concepts don't cease to exist. Things don't just cease to resist the forces that are acting upon them. Otherwise it would be a blatant violation of the action/reaction law of physics. If floors fall down, they would be braced by the floor directly beneath it, and this would cause delay. To call NISTs refusal to acknowledge this and explain how it happened bad science would be a massive understatement.

If there was a controlled explosion to remove the floors to allow for free fall then all the floors have to have been removed at the moment the building collapses correct? If so how can a controlled explosion remove all the floors without showing any "blow out" through windows. Not one single window on any floor shows any sign of their being an explosion on that floor. Unless we are asked to believe that the explosives used were able to remove concrete and steel structures.....quietly



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I notice the presenter of the AE9/11T clip is Richard Gage who is a well deserved laughing stock after his ridiculous cardboard box demo supposed to be representative of the Towers.


You mean this demo?



It really shows how silly the "truth" movement actually is!









 
137
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join