Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by notsoperfect
. The reknowned physicist professor from the Brigham Young university proved the existence of the substance called thermite(thermate) collected from the ashes picked up from the twin tower site.

Dimwit Steven Jones found paint chips.

I just looked that up, the "thermite" was primer paint lol The things people believe as facts astounds me sometimes.

You want to see something real funny ? This is what all the thermite fuss is all about.



Jones lit up a paint chip and called it thermite.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

On top of your burden of proof that is already beyond your comprehension is how the hell the building 7 collaped. Do you have any idea? Any tongue in chick, out of cesspool, troll will be welcome.

You must be the troll, because I've already answered this question 38948389 times, maybe if you do some research (like you claim your into) in this thread then you would have known that.




The building had SIGNIFICANT damage to it, and the witnesses heard loud explosions (due to the tanks) and heard a "groaning" sounds WAY before the collapse indicating the building was going to collapse due to the damage. The reporters knew, the fire fighters knew, pedestrians, everyone knew it was going to come down.

reply to post by jimnuggits


I entirely agree and its as I stated earlier, we need to remember the details, the little things may already be all thats left. Time is not the truth's ally in things of this nature.I wanted to say though that I think this is a great addition to "the little things" we need to remember. Do you remember how President Bush looked after the agent whispered in his ear? Nothing, almost no reaction. If you were told your family's house had just been broken into and your family had been injured and no one knew if anyone survived...how do you think your expressions in the moment of telling would betray of your emotions?

Yet again a thread by someone who has no clue about what hes talking about is let free to roam the boards, I just wish the ignore feature was back, this is turning into GLP fast.

So OP, are you a building engineer? Demolitions expert? Do you have any brains at all? Not trying to argue here, just as I seen you trying to discredit any and all 9/11 threads, I thought Id come around to say hello, and remind you that most of what you try to present as fact, is a big chunk of your delusion. When you have something to substantiate your cause (the OS is true and defensable) please come again, so far you only embarrass yourself by pointing out nonsense and babling like a lil child. Try addressing the questions that have been posted, oh wait, that would send your lil OS down the drain now wouldnt it?

And to think that this forum is highly moderated...Yet rampant lies and firestarters are allowed to roam free, sad state of ATS...

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Some better photos of the damage to the north side of building 7.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx


Facial Expressions say alot, in this case, possibly the most damning.

He knew.

While I have no training, I can read his expression like you are reading this reply.

He knew.

It's the only reason that makes his reaction have any kind of sense.

Only a man who knew what was being perpetrated would show so very little concern.

Bush himself told at least three different versions of what took place that fateful September morning.

None of which follow to the letter the 'official' story.

Perplexing, to say the least.

The American People know very well what happened, but are either unwilling or unable to chase the bad guys down.

A sad page in our cultural diary.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
Well, the progressive collapse of each floor being hit (with each floor breaking into 293273287 pieces mind you) would obviously cause them to reach the ground faster than the tops of walls would, and since the middle of the roof started to fall first in all the videos, that would explain why the four outer walls ended up on top.

But if the center of the building drops it is going to push the walls out, the walls are not going to wait.

But no naturally falling building can fall so symmetrically in order for the whole center to drop at once.

It is simply not possible.

"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin"

www.asce.org...

That is also ignoring the laws of motion. There is no evidence that the towers pancaked, and NIST rejected that hypothesis themselves. So you are supporting a hypothesis even NIST disagrees with. Do you even realise that?

IF the towers had simply pancaked then where is the mass of floors still in the footprint? Floors can not pancake AND eject themselves at the same time. All the mass would be required for the pancaking. There is no evidence of progressive/pancake collapse.

I see you're not interested in actually learning anything, another typical trait of you OS supporters.

And I really don't care what Romeo said, whoever he is lol. I guess he didn't read the NIST report either.

You are just MSM educated, try picking up a physics book sometime.

BTW you didn't answer my question, about the bug and the bus, why is it that OSers never want to answer that question? You either don't know, or you avoid it on purpose because the correct answer would contradict your claims. Which is it, are you a troll, or do you really want to discuss this and maybe learn something?

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


The key here will be what was the source of that loud explosion. Building just doesn't collpase by being externally damaged. Any thoughts? What does it mean to "pull it" in the demolition terms? Why don't you appear in the Alex Jones show and talk about it.

I think this is a very well organized disinfo campaign. Sadly, ATS participated in it and it was the original intention of allowing ATS to be on in public in the first place and use it for disinfo later.

Perrfect... How clever.. Scary..

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Yes you forgot. Next time you say things, back them up with external sources. Proof is only as good as its origins. By the way I really wish you would stop trying to insult people. If you don't find a way to muster thicker skin your going to get eaten up alive. People can be a bit harsh here but its generally because you open up the opportunity for it. Read the T&C if your having problems figuring out why people have been picking on you.

Originally posted by Juanxlink
Yet again a thread by someone who has no clue about what hes talking about is let free to roam the boards, I just wish the ignore feature was back, this is turning into GLP fast.

So OP, are you a building engineer? Demolitions expert? Do you have any brains at all? Not trying to argue here, just as I seen you trying to discredit any and all 9/11 threads, I thought Id come around to say hello, and remind you that most of what you try to present as fact, is a big chunk of your delusion. When you have something to substantiate your cause (the OS is true and defensable) please come again, so far you only embarrass yourself by pointing out nonsense and babling like a lil child. Try addressing the questions that have been posted, oh wait, that would send your lil OS down the drain now wouldnt it?

And to think that this forum is highly moderated...Yet rampant lies and firestarters are allowed to roam free, sad state of ATS...

I've addressed every question posted, and this isn't and NWO dictatorship I can post any opinion I want. You haven't refuted ANY of my proof, while I have cited MANY experts who brush off this stupid conspiracy theory. You hide behind bunk science and conspiracy lies.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Yes you forgot. Next time you say things, back them up with external sources. Proof is only as good as its origins. By the way I really wish you would stop trying to insult people. If you don't find a way to muster thicker skin your going to get eaten up alive. People can be a bit harsh here but its generally because you open up the opportunity for it. Read the T&C if your having problems figuring out why people have been picking on you.

If you have eyes, you will see I have been insulted WAY more than I have insulted anybody else (if I even have for that matter) so you're biased point is void.

And why should I be the one doing all the research? Type in my cited references on on google and find the sources yourself, no wonder you believe lies you're just not motivated to find the real cause by doing any considerable research...Name experts that agree with Professor Jones, I have referenced experts that refure his claims, you have nothing to contribute.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


Again no amount of damage, or fires, can cause a building to fall into its own footprint.

A building collapsing in its footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the collapsed building, can only happen from a controlled implosion demolition.

IF you can explain, using known physics, how that can happen I'll listen. You will have to come up with something completely new though, just repeating what we've heard for ten years won't work as it has already been debunked.

Well done.

Nice thread and detective skills on your own.

I have graduated a 2 year course in welding technologies. I have taken metallurgy and structural steel classes, and had a few good discussions with my instructor.

You are right. Never mind the people that do not have a clue. It all can, and has been explained before. People keep clutching the strawman arguments. Which really shows how much some people really know.

Example: One side was a double clip I-beam design, the other side was a single clip design on the towers. Hence the weaker side.. failed first.... The towers were built to Design Specifications. If you go outside of the design specs you can, and in this case did, have complete structural failure. Anyone that has a clue knows this. Those who do not have a clue stick to the strawman.

I love how the first or second reply in your thread someone derailed it talking about buildng number 7.

I did not read one bit of info in your op referring to building number seven. This is a derailing tactic that truthers love to use....It gets the focus away from the obvious and into an area where thay have a little more chance of survival.............Usually to no avail.

We are talking mllions of pounds staight up in the air.....The towers did not need explosives to fall. They just needed the help from outside of the design specs.

S&F fro a very well thought out thread. It hasbeen a while since I have seen a 9/11 that made sense.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

Again no amount of damage, or fires, can cause a building to fall into its own footprint.

A building collapsing in its footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the collapsed building, can only happen from a controlled implosion demolition.

IF you can explain, using known physics, how that can happen I'll listen. You will have to come up with something completely new though, just repeating what we've heard for ten years won't work as it has already been debunked.

Well I never claimed to be an expert, It just seems like most of the experts agree with the collapse of building 7, boggling my mind as to why there is SUCH doubt. This guys research is very good and he makes some scientifically backed up videos.

www.youtube.com...

SkepticBeliever. Give up alright, this is a forum for intelligent people. Stop talking about gravity. What removed the mass to cause near free fall, free fall acceleration? Im guessing your fantasy

Originally posted by ANOK
. There is no evidence that the towers pancaked,

Yes there is. The truss seats are missing from the columns indicating a pancake collapse.

Anybody here ever worked with steel?

It's an impossible medium, because you have to keep it incredibly hot to work with it, ie bend, manipulate.

Jet fuel and office furniture would not create enough heat, with any kind of flame that would last long enough to completely melt the steel supports.

It may have reached melting temperature, but not nearly long enough to cause a molten puddle that lasted for literally months.

Next...?

Originally posted by dadgad
SkepticBeliever. Give up alright, this is a forum for intelligent people. Stop talking about gravity. What removed the mass to cause near free fall, free fall acceleration? Im guessing your fantasy

If this forum is for intelligent people then how come the only smart people making sense are the ones who agree with me on the progressive collapse? How come only dumb people believe there were explosives or thermite used when no evidence shows that? How come people believe Professor Jones when he has been out cast from the scientific community? Ya, keep living in your ignorant dream world lol

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
. There is no evidence that the towers pancaked,

Yes there is. The truss seats are missing from the columns indicating a pancake collapse.

Wrong, evidence of pancake collapse would be complete floors still visible in the footprint. Floors can not crush each other, eject mass outside the footprint, and still have enough energy to cause a complete pancake collapse.

Again even NIST rejects this!!

Truss seats could have been compromised with another energy source that is not being considered. By itself it does not prove pancake collapse, if it did then NIST would have included it in their report, but even they are not stupid enough to take the whitewash that far.