Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Towers Of Lies

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Here is a link with info about your highway fire.

www.nrc.gov...

It still cannot explain anything about the less than 30 second collapse time of over 1000 feet of skyscraper. It is irrelevant.

psik

You are trying to redirect away from the topic at hand.

I did download the entire pdf. Thanks it's great. The pictures blow up nicely.
It shows these massive 'I' beams and 'box' beams that warped severely in only 17 minutes. (I stand corrected from my 15 minutes statement)

It's amazing that WTCs stayed up as long as they did. Which goes to support the basic premise of the OS. The fire weakened the steel to the point of failure. Once the support of floor 'x' gives way the remaining 30 plus floors will chew their way through the rest.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Picture of WTC 7 debris pile -aerial view


Those pics still show the outer walls are on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

That is the definition of in its own footprint.

If you expect every piece of rubble to be inside the footprint then you're an idiot.

The idea is to get the MAJORITY of the building to stay in the footprint, no one can predict that will happen, sometimes it doesn't. The tallest building ever imploded before WTC 7 was 23 stories, because tall buildings are hard to 'implode'. For a 47 story building to have that much of its mass still inside its footprint would be considered an extremely successful implosion demolition on any other day than 911.

There is no way you can stop some of the rubble being outside of the footprint, especially one that isn't gutted beforehand. Normally close buildings would have been protected with tarps, like they were during clean-up.

You are not being reasonable in this debate, and trying to misrepresent what in its own footprint means by taking the term absolutely literal. You fail to realise the difference between a natural collapse, and an 'implosion' collapse, is like night and day, there is no argument here, just your denial.



edit on 4/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


In other words, you will continue to redefine "footprint" in order to continue saying it as an argument. Come on man, you can't just say things and make them true. When you are looking at the debris pile and trying to say that all four walls are draped inward, you seem to lose your ability to count, because there are certainly nowhere near 47 floors of wall laying on the pile if they all fell inward. There would only be 15-20 floors. Where'd the other half of the building go?

I'll tell you. The building fell South is the most logical explanation. Then, the part that you are interpreting as the South side laying Northward is actually just the rest of the North wall broken over the pile.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Here is a link with info about your highway fire.

www.nrc.gov...

It still cannot explain anything about the less than 30 second collapse time of over 1000 feet of skyscraper. It is irrelevant.

psik

You are trying to redirect away from the topic at hand.




I provide more details on your distraction but I am redirecting.


psik



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You forgot the special ability of truthers to draw all kind of shaky colored lines in ms paint proving beyond any doubt they are right.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38

The 1993 'bombings' were designed to rid the towers of the then occupants, and
to allow subsequently 'instalment' of their fake occupants (for compensation purposes),
in preperation for the 9/11 scam.

Believe well that they knew well what thet were doing.
9/11 was a 30+ year conspiracy afterall.
letsrollforums.com...

Thanks for taking the time to go thru the links.
It all becomes clear.
www.cluesforum.info



Hadn't heard that. Interesting theory.

Man this world needs a good asteroid right about now



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So it's those of us who use the plain english- dictionary definition of a word who are abusing language. And those of us who are using language to mean whatever we choose it to are the honest ones.

That's an interesting perspective. Quite the revelation.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Those pics still show the outer walls are on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

That is the definition of in its own footprint.


Where did you get that definition from? Or is it just something you made up?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by ANOK
Those pics still show the outer walls are on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

That is the definition of in its own footprint.


Where did you get that definition from? Or is it just something you made up?


Well obvioulsy there really isn't a definition.

But all four walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is an example of the term.

Because it is the point of implosion demolition...


....Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building [Penthouse kink] before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward....

science.howstuffworks.com...

BTW for those who insist on denying the term...


A Real Implosion?

Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode.

A building implosion isn't truly an implosion -- atmospheric pressure doesn't pull or push the structure inward, gravity makes it collapse. But the term implosion is in common use for this sort of demolition. In this article, we use the word this way.

science.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by spoor

Where did you get that definition from? Or is it just something you made up?


Well obvioulsy there really isn't a definition.

But all four walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is an example of the term.



And doberman pinschers are examples of cats.

LOL. "there really isn't a definition". Guess it just means whatever then.

If there's no real definition, why is the term so important for the truth movement.

Here's my educated guess. 'collapsed into its own footprint' really is often said of buildings that are carefully demolished and collapse into their own footprint.. Truthers heard the use of the term without understanding it, and tried to use it as a synonym for controlled demolition. As in so many other cases, using words without understanding them led to a false sense of authority and comprehension. Other truthers heard it from the first truthers, and perpetuated the misunderstanding without knowing that the first truthers were just saying it because it sounded good. Of course they got called on their bs eventually, but now it has become a necessary sound bite; a substitute for an argument, a sacred cow that must be venerated.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by ANOK
Those pics still show the outer walls are on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

That is the definition of in its own footprint.


Where did you get that definition from? Or is it just something you made up?


Well obvioulsy there really isn't a definition.

But all four walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building is an example of the term.

Because it is the point of implosion demolition...


....Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building [Penthouse kink] before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward....

science.howstuffworks.com...

BTW for those who insist on denying the term...


A Real Implosion?

Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode.

A building implosion isn't truly an implosion -- atmospheric pressure doesn't pull or push the structure inward, gravity makes it collapse. But the term implosion is in common use for this sort of demolition. In this article, we use the word this way.

science.howstuffworks.com...


If implosion demolitions of towers fall nicely within the footprint of the structures then why do they construct extensive perimeter barriers? Kind of shoots a hole in your augmenting footprint theory. If anything 7 WTC is a nice illustration of internal structural failure and gravity at work.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 
I've stared at the Twin Towers countless times from all angles, near and far, in all different types of weather, and never once was able to stare "through" it as this photo would make appear possible. I don't buy it.




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bitsoys
reply to post by pshea38
 
I've stared at the Twin Towers countless times from all angles, near and far, in all different types of weather, and never once was able to stare "through" it as this photo would make appear possible. I don't buy it.



Ah, so you didn't read about the shuttering system installed in 1978 that
I linked to earlier, to
That is exactly what is wrong with people. They will not confront their firmly
held beliefs, in spite of the damning evidence available.

The first 10 or so floors, you would have had a reasonable view of. But how could you
tell above that? Even if you knew what you were looking for, you would have a hard
time discerning it.
They had smart men on the payrole, employed to deceive.

Please go through the links i gave, especially the freedom of information data
received, detailing the occupancy facts and figures.

All the evidence piles up, and now makes the case, 100%.

You were deceived, like the rest of us.
The twin towers were (scantily) built to be destroyed.

9/11 was all about illusion, smoke and mirrors.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by pshea38

The 1993 'bombings' were designed to rid the towers of the then occupants, and
to allow subsequently 'instalment' of their fake occupants (for compensation purposes),
in preperation for the 9/11 scam.

Believe well that they knew well what thet were doing.
9/11 was a 30+ year conspiracy afterall.
letsrollforums.com...

Thanks for taking the time to go thru the links.
It all becomes clear.
www.cluesforum.info



Hadn't heard that. Interesting theory.

Man this world needs a good asteroid right about now


How about a good asteroid which only smashes bad eggs?

Have you seen this thread human?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have believed for a while that all intelligent agencies of all countries must know about
the completely faked nature of 9/11. (Well i (and many others) do, and i have no resources.)

I am hopeful, but obviously very cautious about this. Look out for ridiculous and
non-sensical news stories incriminating hitherto untouchable players in the near future.

Just saying.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
If implosion demolitions of towers fall nicely within the footprint of the structures then why do they construct extensive perimeter barriers? Kind of shoots a hole in your augmenting footprint theory. If anything 7 WTC is a nice illustration of internal structural failure and gravity at work.


Because they can never guarantee that something won't go wrong. What if an explosive fails to go off and that causes something to tilt which should not have tilted and people were allowed to be 300 feet to close.

Which space shuttle exploded on take off?

psik



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Space Shuttle Challenger O-ring links failed 73 seconds into flight, in January 1986. In 1987 my employer developed and managed the (confidential) NSRS, one of the first projects I inherited to be part of when I was hired in 1987. Since I found a link on the web the confidentiality of it may not effect my employment anymore, since we couldn't rebid the contract since 1993.

What is the point of that question?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Space Shuttle Challenger O-ring links failed 73 seconds into flight, in January 1986. In 1987 my employer developed and managed the (confidential) NSRS, one of the first projects I inherited to be part of when I was hired in 1987. Since I found a link on the web the confidentiality of it may not effect my employment anymore, since we couldn't rebid the contract since 1993.

What is the point of that question?


I was really just being rhetorical. That is something easy to search on the net if I really wanted to remember the name. My point was that you can never be 100% sure that something won't go wrong. So not clearing an area around any demolition is almost criminal negligence.

psik



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bitsoys
reply to post by pshea38
 
I've stared at the Twin Towers countless times from all angles, near and far, in all different types of weather, and never once was able to stare "through" it as this photo would make appear possible. I don't buy it.


But were you ever in a helicopter at sunset?
Discern where the photographer was when he clicked the shutter.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38


Here is a picture of the twin towers from 1978.
Some are visible, but where are the rest of the floors?



Where are the exterior columns in that photo? They are not seen either. But surely you will not claim that they weren't there too.....

Once you figure out why the ext columns don't show, then the same explanation works why floors aren't seen.

This OP is so outlandish, so nuts, so stupid, and flies in the face of conventional thinking that it can be dismissed as being without merit, and as nothing more than a spamming attempt by a mindless follower of the delusional ramblings of psycho boy himself - Phil Jayhan.....



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ANOK

mostly in its own footprint


Ah, mostly.

What percentage of the building would have to fall outside the footprint for it to be a plausible collapse from fire and damage? You plainly acknowledge that at a certain point it wouldn't be suspicious anymore, and that not all the debris landed in the footprint. How much more would have to have landed outside for you to accept the official version of the event?


It's odd that you choose not to answer this. Although in the light of the embarrassment you've caused yourself with your notions of the definition of footprint I can see why you might be avoiding it.






top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join