Why a “controlled demolition”

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You guys are beating a dead cat using thread bare videos.
We've heard the same arguments.
We've seen the same videos.

The only experts in the right fields that support your view points are selling DVD's and tickets to their next meeting.

Prove me wrong!




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
To the OP...

Why make building seven appear to be controlled demolition and not a more believable scenario
of partial or asymmetrical collapse? To cover up evidence.

How do you rig a building with explosives and cables and figure in an intangible--like a plane which
could have missed a planned impact point and severed detonation cables? You use wireless
technology in a government restricted radio band.

Last, weakening the buildings core columns with thermate under cover of an already existing fire
and timing certain key cut charges on central core columns to coincide with plane impacts I find
to be a plausible explanation of how the twin towers could have been brought down.

Building seven could also have been successfully imploded in the same fashion, except for
the cut charges to to central columns. I have trouble reconciling the lack of evidence of collapse
initiating explosions from what evidence is available...and building seven would have needed
some mechanism to initiate global collapse simultaneously to have fallen the way it did. Thermite
application would not have been sufficient alone as the cause of building seven's collapse
because of this...



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
hit the damn post button twice
edit on 20-6-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by D8ncer

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



....with little to no resistance....

Says who? I see this all the time. What would resistance "look" like? There was resistance, hence all the dust and broken and twisted structural material. It doesn't take long for things to break once they have been stressed beyond their capacity. Milliseconds. That's why "resistance" isn't visibile to the naked eye.


If you get up and sprint as fast as you can into a brick wall, you will soon see what resistance looks like. You stop dead in your track with a broken nose and concussion.

If a car hits another car in a crash or a car hits a wall the cars slow down. Hence as the floors collapsed they should slow down. They didnt and actually kept the same speed for the total collapse.


I'm no demo expert, but I can agree that the destruction of the towers showed no signs of slowing down. Each floor from top to bottom went down in perfect unision ejecting outwards.

[



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by homervb


hells yeah man, the melting point of a passport is way higher than that of steel



It never spent any time near any fires.

Silly.




You're right, it shot through all of them. My baddd.


Not too mention ALL That Steal!...



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


just a thought...what if..i know it gets argued...but look at the flight paths...and look at flt 93.....could building 7 have also been a target...maybe everything did not go as planned....and you need to as yourself....why was the Bunker 23RD floor abandoned.....I mean it was afterall New yorks ECC....and was left quite early on.



But you know something....we should not question anything to do with 911....as it was a perfectly normal senario....Nothing strange out there...Steel structures always fall down from fire....no skyscrapers are safe....They should all be condemned....because Steel is a useless material and it has been shown to not be able to withstand fire.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Why? Because that's precisely what happened, and no other explanation can explain the actual occurance of the event itself in physical terms ie: the buildings explosively blew apart, from top to bottom, to within maybe three seconds (approx 13) of absolute free fall in nothing but air (approx 10 seconds). The laws of motion and conservation of energy preclude any other possible explanation than that the buildings were intentionally blown up. Why? There are probably a whole host of "reasons", but to ask why doesn't represent any sort of valid debunk as to the physical nature of the destruction of the buildings themselves.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I was referring of course only to the twin towers in the above post.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
We can even SEE clearly, that the buildings were actually demolished with explosives, as is the case here with the North Tower event.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
...because Steel is a useless material and it has been shown to not be able to withstand fire.



Is that why they spray fire proofing on it ? To make it resist fires ? At least resist it for an hour or two.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

So by your bizarre logic, because a blackbox was not able to move as freely as a passport then it should suffer more destruction?!



Yes the black box would defiantly have more G's imposed on it than the passport. The black box stopped quickly inside the burning building, wile the passport decelerated out side the burning building over a longer period of time. Don't you understand acceleration forces Truther ?


I understand forces nonce boy, but passports cannot punch through walls, and your little passport fantasy is possible one of the silliest 9/11 related things I have ever come across, even more so than holograms!

Were you tracking the black box and the passport via GPS that day?!!!



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist
 


No, the data recorder is not designed to survive a building collapse. It is an electronic box whose placement in the aircraft contributes more to its survival than anything else.


So are you trying to say both black boxes were confirmed to have landed inside the buildings?!

Which page of the official report is that on?

The first 'plane' never fully entered the building, and the second one could also have gone anywhere, especially seeing as there was supposed to be 'plane debris' over 1 mile away.

Please do give a link to your source that states the black boxes were officially confirmed to be inside both buildings prior to collapse, you seem so certain, so I would love to know how this can be credibly verified...



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 





What is going on here is they planted the passport, to make it seem like muslims did it, although no one officially even admitted to doing it,

They had their names on the passenger list. Why bother putting one passport on the ground?
Just like why use two planes in NYC and one missile in DC?
Planning like this makes no sense.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


why so neat and tidy, why make it look like a controlled domoliton. First reason is the more spectacular the disaster, the more emotional the response. Do you find it a little strange the mastermind of the plot was identified by news reporters before the first building fell? Simply having a plane fly in to the towers, killing a few hundred people would not have the desired effect of galvanizing a nation into whatever action our leaders deemed neccessary. Killing a few thousand, while destroying two symbols of our nation's wealth, would certainly do the trick. It would be a pearl harbour type of event. Second, the damage must remain within a certain area. If the towers had fallen normally, ie; fell over from the point of impact and above, there would have been massive damage outside of the WTC complex. You are talking about having thirty to fourty floors falling in an arc toward the ground. It will hit other buildings outside of the complex. Thus, you bring it down to where the damage is minimal outside of the target area. How could it have been done? Nearly every floor of the WTC towers were renovated in some form or another in the months prior to the attacks. The records of who did this work are still classified for national security purposes. What is known, is during the time frame when the walls and elevator shafts were being worked on, ( the four main core supports were inside the shaft area) the securtiy for the towers was handled by a company ran by George W. Bush's youngest brother. Almost the entire staff were ex intel types. Using military grade nano thermite (unignited bits of this were found through the island in wtc dust, thus there is no mistake as to what it is) Placed in the core support columns, as well is the outer supporting latices would have had the dual effect of cutting the steel, followed by a concussive release of energy. These charges would have been wired together with cables and tied into recievers located throughout the structure. If the planes sever these cables, the ones below the damage will still function. To remote detonate the charges, the main detonating transmitter would have to be close by, say in WTC 7. Otherwise, the signal strength would be dimmished by horizontal and lateral distance. WTC 7 would them be imploded serving another dual purpose. It destroys the evidence of the main computer controlled detonator, and destroys all the records of the largest SEC investigation in U.S. history. It was here all the ORIGINAL records were kept ( one can dispute in court the veracity of copies if the original document ceases to exist). Another aircraft then slams precisely into the point of the pentagon where all the records were kept regarding the missing 2.3 trillion dollars from the pentagon budget. For a more informative viewpoint, short and to the point, go to youtube and search for the clip, " 9/11, a conspiracy theory". He sums it all up nicely, with links to supporting facts. Just my take on it, does not mean it happened that way.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Haha, you are the one who is not very smart, you do not even know the real story behind 'truthers' and what they actually are! Shall I call you a murder then? I may as well call you a child molester if you are going to try and associate me with the real meaning of a 'truther' because the people that came up with the term 'truther' are murders, and pedo's! Basically, if you can call me a 'truther' which you know full well I'm not, then you are blatantly a nonce!



Truther.


Originally posted by kidtwist,

Right onto your pathetic video,


I see that you are not able to understand Newtons first law of motion. Why am I not surprised ?


The velocity of a body (a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line) remains constant unless the body is compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it


Air has mass .075 pounds per cubic foot.

19500 cubic feet of air for a 767.

About 1500 pounds of air total.

The air had velocity. 680 feet per second for AA11

According to Newton the air would want to continue its straight path. This would force the air through the building and out the other side. It carried debris and at least one passport with it.

The evidence seen in the videos of UA 175 back this up.





Can you explain where the air from inside the fuselage went if it didn't go through the building ?

Good luck Truther.

edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



If you want logic? First observe my signature.


In regards ,to "demolition aspects" per'se, there are many ways to demo a building. Every(certified obviously) demo-company's main concern(s) is "safety" and "neighboring structures". With 911 ,,"safety" and "neighboring structures" would be irrelevant. The ,"apparent", demo teams for 911 ,main objective, would be to shock 'n awe the world and confirm pulverization within the twin towers.

Yes,, a demo team could make,have made, the towers fall in certain angels. Totally agree. BUT,,, we are talking about the viewers perception and guarantee of a total destruction of a structure that has never been demo'd before.


And your question of the plane(s) affecting the charges-character is ASSUMING an aluminum plane can create a shock wave down the steel/concrete cores. Which the planes fuselage impact was not centered with both cores.


That's said, discussing if there was or wasn't charges or nukes is speculating and can easily be questioned for either side. --There was no independent studies done.-- Any videos,articles,photos,reports,eye witness accounts that truthers or OSers or any Government provides can be manipulated in there behalf.


What cannot be twisted is my signature. Which is an observable logical fact. And actually 911 hysteria should go no further than that. Just be aware of the next "Life -Changing" event(whenever that is...lol) and logically observe carefully what you're watching and the information being so easily advertised to you.


Cheers


Ps- sorry for entering this debate so late. I'm out of town via blackberry.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

What cannot be twisted is my signature. Which is an observable logical fact.


You still have never specified how big and how hard something has to be in order to destroy the towers. Your signature should include that. Would John Holmes be capable of destroying the towers ?

edit on 20-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I just finished reading this entire thread. Good work ATS. I especially learned a lot from reading posts by waypastvne. That pic of the plane debris and groundhumburger... shudder. Good video about the passport too.

That fake video of flash bangs on WTC7? Shame on the bringer who knew before he brought it.

The passport? What would prompt someone to plant it when he was on the passenger list, and on the flight? What if his real one was later found and then there were two passports? Kind of self defeating there you think?

All those who know nothing about explosives demolition and how hard that is to make happen in secret? Let alone drive a 100 ton airliner filled with fuel right thru the "set" at hundreds of miles an hour? That would mean unexploded stuff like det. cord, caps, and charges would all be left over tangled together with a bunch of wire. Nobody found any of that did they? Not one bit...

Oh and "gravity"? It always pulls straight down...




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


Since the twin towers were a tube in tube design, the failure mode is different from "traditional" buildings. The support is provided by the outer shell (tube) and the inner core (tube). The floors in the tube in tube design are necessary to keep the outer and inner tubes structurally sound. Remove a floor and the structural integrity of the building is compromised. The floors do not support the weight of the floors above it. The core and the out tube will fail in a similar manner since they are similar structures.

Since the building is mostly air and gravity acts to pull the building to the center of the earth, the building will not topple. The top section will lean towards the side with the damage but after a certain amount of lean the joints/structure on the pivot side will fail. Gravity will pull the complete top section straight down and there is not enough lean for the top portion to fall off to the side. The debris pile will tend to point in the direction of the tilt of the top portion. The top section sort of acts like a plunger, forcing the outer walls to topple and the core to get crushed. Major Tom calls this ROOSD (Runaway Open Office Space Destruction). Research his posts to get a better idea of ROOSD.

Sorry it took so long to respond to your post but I'm not that active of a poster.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join