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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 43
17
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
www.structuremag.org...

Oh yes the failure of column 79 garbage.

Sorry but they fail to explain how the outer walls ended up on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

(do you want to see the pics that prove that again)

If you understood the physics, and how buildings are constructed, you would know that is nonsense.

Even IF it collapsed the way they claim the outer walls COULD NOT have waited for the center to collapse and fold inwards on the top. There is a way that can be achieved, it's called implosion demolition.


edit on 4/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Even IF it collapsed the way they claim the outer walls COULD NOT have waited for the center to collapse and fold inwards on the top. There is a way that can be achieved, it's called implosion demolition.


That's because they didn't fall inward. The entire South wall is gone, and the other walls probably pulled in because, wait for it, they were still attached to the rest of the building! Crazy, huh? Gravity should have just blown the building all across New York, right? We should have seen hollywood style destruction for it to be real. No way that in real life, buildings can collapse internally before collapsing entirely, and then lean toward the South and have parts of the wall still intact on top of the pile.

Seriously Anok, stop focusing on stupid things.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
That's because they didn't fall inward.


Yes they did, post collapse pics verify that. Do you have evidence of your claims?




The entire South wall is gone


Evidence? Where did it go?


and the other walls probably pulled in because, wait for it, they were still attached to the rest of the building! Crazy, huh?


No, just ridiculous. The walls would be pushed outwards, path of least resistance, as the buildings internals would push against them, not pull them inwards. If that was the case then implosion demolition would not be necessary for any building.

The whole idea of implosion demolition is to get the building to fall inwards, that is why the term 'implosion' was created for that method. A building collapsing from fire, IF it could collapse from fire in the first place, is not going to be a pile of total destruction mostly in its own footprint, showing the symmetry only possible if the collapse was perfectly vertical.


Gravity should have just blown the building all across New York, right? We should have seen hollywood style destruction for it to be real. No way that in real life, buildings can collapse internally before collapsing entirely, and then lean toward the South and have parts of the wall still intact on top of the pile.


No, the outer walls should have been under the rubble, not on top, and spread outside of its footprint, as the they would pushed out to the path of least resistance. If it leaned to the west as claimed then post collapse pics would show that, but they don't.


Seriously Anok, stop focusing on stupid things.


You'd like me to stop focusing on this wouldn't you? I know you prefer the easy stuff that doesn't challenge your thinking.

Why don't you stop focusing on me if you don't like my posts? Go argue with someone else, it is that easy mate.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Dude, typing those two messages takes about 10 times longer than looking 2 pages back. You are dodging. You are ignoring inconvenient replies. And your excuse is your exiting real life, leaving you too little time to click two pages back. Its rather pathetic, and I don't expect you to make the effort, since you don't actually understand physics and it scares you. You rather play this childish game.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

No actually I don't, I want to debate you, not someone else through you. You are the one here claiming I'm wrong, so address my point with your own knowledge, not someone else's that you obvioulsy think is correct simply because it's from an 'authority'.

So you have NO idea yourself if I am right or not. I'm hear to debate you not your 'experts'. Many experts agree with me. But who cares I am an EXPERT. You have no idea who I am.


Of course you want to debate with me (and all the other lay-people on ATS) and not with genuine experts because you would have to actually support your claims. You don't want to subject your "theory" to the scrutiny of professionals because you know you would have your ass handed back to you.


My own education mate. I don't need someone else to tell me what is right or wrong, or what to think.
Maths is not required to see the obvious. You all seem to fall back to this whenever you have nothing else.

That's what I thought. You haven't actually done any real research on this subject. "Maths is not required?" Well, in the realms of physics and engineering math IS required if you want to actually prove anything--which clearly you don't--because you can't. You like to throw around unsupported statements and expect everyone to accept them on your word (because you declare yourself an "expert").


I'm not in this debate to solve the 911 conspiracy, I am simply here to debate idiots who fail to understand basic physics, my beef is with you not the perps of 911. I am under no illusion that the true story will ever come out. I'm not living in lala land lol. I just like to see you guys get all pissed off because someone dares to question your reality...


Cop out. Just admit you don't have the balls to debate with professionals. You choose to "debate idiots" because you know you really have no clue what your talking about, and/or you're too much of a coward to step into a real arena of expert debate.
edit on 1-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Two people coming to basically the same conclusion independently can't be a coincidence. If the things Anok says when he talks "physics" weren't so hilarious, he would have lost any attention ages ago. Too bad Darkwing isn't posting anymore, he was even funnier and an expert digging his own hole.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Maths is not required to see the obvious. You all seem to fall back to this whenever you have nothing else.

I'm still laughing at this one. Pretty funny coming from someone claiming to be an expert in physics.
edit on 1-4-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Its equivalent to "Evidence is not required to see the truth." Indeed, we just need our gut feeling. That is what got us to the moon, and made it possible to be typing this message on a computer. All that math is just silly and invented to confuse laymen.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes they did, post collapse pics verify that. Do you have evidence of your claims?



I don't see the south wall there. I just see some lines drawn over the rubble with Paint.


No, just ridiculous. The walls would be pushed outwards, path of least resistance, as the buildings internals would push against them, not pull them inwards. If that was the case then implosion demolition would not be necessary for any building.


Wat... Are you serious? Oh, it's April fools, I get it. I mean, no one would actually think that a building would just squish downward and push its walls away. That's just stupid. Good joke, Anok!


You'd like me to stop focusing on this wouldn't you? I know you prefer the easy stuff that doesn't challenge your thinking.

Why don't you stop focusing on me if you don't like my posts? Go argue with someone else, it is that easy mate.


I would, but this is more entertaining than sitting around being bored. I love posting facts and obvious things and watching posters like yourself go crazy trying to defend your beliefs. Often times I'm not even criticizing your conspiracy. I'm just pointing out little things that are bothering me. You take it as an attack, every time. At least you're not as paranoid as some, though, who I will not mention here.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
Even IF it collapsed the way they claim the outer walls COULD NOT have waited for the center to collapse and fold inwards on the top. There is a way that can be achieved, it's called implosion demolition.


The entire South wall is gone



What?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I don't see the south wall there. I just see some lines drawn over the rubble with Paint.


Wrong. What you see here is truther evidence. The image is so obvious that it does not requires any additional explanation. If you don't see it you are just too dumb.


Wat... Are you serious? Oh, it's April fools, I get it. I mean, no one would actually think that a building would just squish downward and push its walls away. That's just stupid. Good joke, Anok!


Everyone knows that the outside walls are not attached to the interior. They are just a loose shell around the interior building.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No, the outer walls should have been under the rubble, not on top, and spread outside of its footprint, as the they would pushed out to the path of least resistance. If it leaned to the west as claimed then post collapse pics would show that, but they don't.


Just a question I know you are not going to answer, because you are too busy with your interesting real life, how is this any different in an actual controlled demolition? Why do the walls end on top in such a collapse? That wouldn't be the path of least resistance right? Be specific.
edit on 1-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Varemia
The entire South wall is gone



What?


The building fell toward the South. The South wall was buried under rubble.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by ReconX
 


I see. I was confused by one of the WFC buildings in the foreground, along with the WFC winter garden dome. This might be interesting, but I'd like some more photos of this event, or some clearer ones before I'm convinced that it's fire.







posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReconX

Originally posted by Varemia
The entire South wall is gone



What?


The building fell toward the South. The South wall was buried under rubble.



Why can it be seen in the images of the rubble then?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReconX
Why can it be seen in the images of the rubble then?


Are you so certain that's the South wall? Think about the number of floors the building has. I'll help you. 47. Now, count the floors, and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReconX
Why can it be seen in the images of the rubble then?


Are you so certain that's the South wall? Think about the number of floors the building has. I'll help you. 47. Now, count the floors, and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from.


But that applies to all four sides. You can clearly see the bottom floors of all four sides, while the higher floors have collapsed into a pile in the middle and lie underneath the bottom floors.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
World Trade Center
2009 November | 9/11 - A Cheap Magic Trick

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”–
Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”
–Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.”
–Paramedic Daniel Rivera

The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York at the end of 2001, were not publicly released

search.yahoo....**http%3a//911caper.com/2009/11/


edit on 3/31/2012 by longjohnbritches because: url

edit on 3/31/2012 by longjohnbritches because: nasty urls


Hey anok
I reposted this so that the readers can hear how it happened.
It fits so darn good with your videos. Keep pop, pop, popin those hacks!!!!
later dude



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Its good that we have actual video and audio evidence of the events so we do not need to rely on often unreliable or subjective eyewitness reports. But for the sake of the truth movement, lets ignore that evidence. Its not a good practice to base your opinion on objective evidence that anyone can verify if you want to be a truther.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Its good that we have actual video and audio evidence of the events so we do not need to rely on often unreliable or subjective eyewitness reports. But for the sake of the truth movement, lets ignore that evidence. Its not a good practice to base your opinion on objective evidence that anyone can verify if you want to be a truther.


Hi plb,
Is that audio?
What's a truth movement?
Got a vid?
thanks ljb




top topics



 
17
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join