New News Five Demolition Teams Cleaned Up WTC Site!

reply to post by hooper


well since your such a big believer in the OS, then you would believe the pancake theory, which would be symmetrical?

doesnt matter what you say though

watch the vids,,, the building collapsed in symmetrical fashion. Only a blind person could argue against it!

Do you know the difference between symmetrical and Asymmetrical?

Getting buildings to fall vertically (i.e.: symmetrically about their vertical axes) is what the art and science of controlled demolition are all about. By causing a building to fall vertically into its footprint, demolitions experts avoid damage to surrounding buildings. This is achieved through the careful placement and timing of explosives so as to cause the simultaneous and symmetric failures of all the main structural supports. Given the strength and resilience of steel, the failure to break even one of the major columns in a steel-framed building could cause it to tip to one side as it collapsed.

It is inconceivable that any random event or combination of events, such as aircraft collisions, fires, or fuel tank explosions, could cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns in a building -- especially a tall steel-framed building -- needed to cause it to collapse vertically.

Both of the Twin Tower collapses exhibited remarkable symmetry. The North Tower's collapse commenced suddenly. The top of the tower seemed to effortlessly telescope down into the intact portion of the building. The collapse remained symmetrical from start to finish. The South Tower's collapse behavior was more complex. Its top first tipped for about two seconds, then started to descend. Despite the initial asymmetry of the collapse, it became more and more symmetric after the top started to fall. Once the top disappeared into the enormous dust cloud, there was no further evidence that the top had started to topple, except for a leaning anvil-shaped cloud of darker dust.

The centered collapses meant the falling mass followed the path of maximum resistance. That's the opposite of how we expect a structure to behave when it falls apart in any kind of natural process. Even if the towers were made out of clay, we wouldn't expect them to collapse in such a dead-centered fashion. It's all the more incredible that a steel structure would shred itself by falling into itself instead of falling over.
These photographs show the South Tower from the south at about two seconds and eight seconds after its top started to plunge downward. They show that the collapse became more symmetric as it progressed. Any natural collapse would have become less symmetric as it progressed.

There are many examples of steel-framed buildings undergoing unintentional collapses as a result of severe earthquakes. In contrast to the destruction of the Twin Towers, no such collapses have been vertical or total -- let alone explosive. Rather, steel-framed buildings destroyed by earthquakes have toppled.

well, sorry hooper, but I won,,, im gonna have to stop arguing with you now, as i know your just a troll!

may god have mercy on you!


PS- whats your other aliases? seriously, me and a few other members want to know!!! make sure you star some more of your posts!

[edit on 4/27/2010 by VonDoomen]

reply to post by hooper

You mean a commercial jetliner striking a skyscraper isn't "natrual"? I'll be darned. And no there were not hundreds of credible witness who heard anything like building demolition blasts. Again, your hyperbole is not the basis for an investigation.

I do believe ATS has rules for posters who “deliberate” spread disinformation.

[color=gold]Oral Histories
Long-Suppressed Oral Histories Corroborate Demolitions

911research.wtc7.net...

And no there were not hundreds of credible witness who heard anything like building demolition blasts

[color=gold]Your comment is untrue. I like how you just spout off your opinions as if they are the facts without providing any credible sources to back your claims.

No, I am not talking about the airplanes, are we? We are talking about the hundreds of credible eyewitness who saw and heard explosions
If you can provide any “creditable proof” that all these professionals are “lairs” then I would love to see it?



[edit on 27-4-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So my question is this. If you had participated, perhaps unknowingly, in the events of 9/11, how much cash would it take you to keep quiet about it? Given that nobody is apparently immune to the lure of money there must be a figure which would be enough to buy your silence.

Well like I said given the right amount of incentive, in the context of a given situation (e.g. companies needing contracts to survive in a down market) even the Pope would turn a blind eye and manage to justify to themselves that they're right to keep their mouths shut. In the capitalist system there is no morality, only growth and profit.

I've lived long enough to experience this and to know how we all work, no one is above it, and those who claim to be are usually the easiest to buy.
The worst criminals are those in mansions, not prisons...

[edit on 4/28/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by VonDoomen

It is inconceivable that any random event or combination of events, such as aircraft collisions, fires, or fuel tank explosions, could cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns in a building -- especially a tall steel-framed building -- needed to cause it to collapse vertically.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was inconceivable. That's a completely different story. It is quite obvious now that since whoever you are quoting there can not "concieve" of a scenario wherein the damage from huge plane, loaded with fuel crashing into a building at 500 mph could possibly inflict sufficient damage to cause critical members of the structure to fail then we must begin to immeadiately investigate other scenarios.

For the sake of efficiency, are there any other scenarios that your mystery consultant considers inconceivable that we need to revisit?

Again, your opinions are not my facts.

reply to post by impressme

No, I am not talking about the airplanes, are we? We are talking about the hundreds of credible eyewitness who saw and heard explosions

I didn't say explosions. I said "building demolition blasts". Big difference if you've ever been around any kind of demolition or construction.

Hearing random loud, short noises while two of the biggest buildings in the world are burning is not, by far, just cause to go looking for evidence of explosives.

reply to post by hooper


Might want to read this again

cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns in a building

make sure you understand that, b/c a single plane attack cannot cause the simultaneous failure of ALL support columns within the building.

If it was just the plane that brought the buildings down, it would have toppled over, as it had a huge gouge in one side.

Have you ever cut a tree down with a chainsaw? It usualy topples over in the direction of the wedge you cut out which you could say is like the plane hitting one side of the building.

Secondly, if we extrapolate your reasoning, and put it to the test with building 7, I fail to see how you can argue a plan brought down building 7.

reply to post by VonDoomen

make sure you understand that, b/c a single plane attack cannot cause the simultaneous failure of ALL support columns within the building.

Huh? You are obviously confused about how things are built.

The plane crashed was the intializing event that caused the building support system to fail. The building support system failed when there was sufficient loss of structural integrity in the system after the effects of the initial impact and explosion were coupled with the longer duration event of the fire. When these composite losses overloaded the remaining intact support system members there was global failure.

But you know this and still insist on using openly inaccurate, if not downright deceptive, language hoping, I suppose, that someone will get sucked down your little rabbit hole.

Buildings are not trees. They are systems made up of thousands, if not millions of interdependent members all serving slightly different purposes, if not by function, then by quantity.

reply to post by ANOK


So what's your price?

I'm genuinely interested, not trying to dick around. If you had cast iron evidence of a really major crime - a murder, say - how much would it take to keep you quiet?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So what's your price?

Some people do not have a price if they beleive they are doing it for thier country.

reply to post by REMISNE


Sure, some people would probably do it for nothing. Then their price is zero.

Anok wrote

"no one is above it, and those who claim to be are usually the easiest to buy"

so I'm just wondering what his price is.