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.

 

Ground Zero Footage

page: 14
56
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot


If you're not qualified to ask questions, but do it anyways


What answers have I given? I have challenged answers given in the official theory. I see nothing wrong with that, it is only theory that is official. There is no evidence to support any of it. All the evidence was quickly disposed of and the investigation was put off for 14 months. There is no answers to be found in that. It is inadmissible and you are telling you are continuously attacking me for not buying it. All you have done in this thread is tell me what to think and the only thing you have brought to the table is the OS. The OS is why I am here asking questions and getting ideas, and all I get from you is battery.


then there's np way for you to determine what is believeable or not, And so you fall back on common sense again. Which fails under these circumstances, cuz as you admitted, there is nothing to base your common sense on.....
The common sense is to re think 9/11 because I know when I am being lied to. There was no credible investigation (by the investigators own admissions) so the sensible thing would be to investigate it.


We back the os cuz there are no credible alternate theories.


There was no better theory than this one:


“19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a “pancake” fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.”






Just don't ignore answers when they are given to you.


What answers? Challenging a "progressive collapse" is totally legitimate since the "progressive collapse theory" on a steel structure does not mesh up with the collapse footage. It has to be the stupidest theories going right now right up next to holograms.

I shouldn't feel sorry for myself for your battery, since I just looked at your post history and the only thing you post on is 9/11 which means you might have a personal chip on your shoulder about something. I don't think I will be responding to you anymore. Good day.


edit on 23-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




The top slab of that building fell onto the one below and even although none of the slabs below had damage or a fire the collapse continued to the ground.

I now hope that is SIMPLE enough even for YOU to inderstand.



What you don't seem to understand is that there were no floor slabs in the core of the building. A progressive collapse as you described would have left the core standing amid the "pancaking" of the floors. But, as always, when OSers are asked to explain this, they just shrug it off with a vague "Well, tons of stuff fell on it....".



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: wmd_2008




The top slab of that building fell onto the one below and even although none of the slabs below had damage or a fire the collapse continued to the ground.

I now hope that is SIMPLE enough even for YOU to inderstand.



What you don't seem to understand is that there were no floor slabs in the core of the building. A progressive collapse as you described would have left the core standing amid the "pancaking" of the floors. But, as always, when OSers are asked to explain this, they just shrug it off with a vague "Well, tons of stuff fell on it....".


No FLOOR SLABS in the core then HOW DID PEOPLE GET TO THE STAIRWELLS TOILETS or KITCHENS guess where they were!!!!

Also do YOU honestly think everything would fall straight down without impacting other parts of the structure



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I see, so now the floor slabs stretched all the way across the building, including the core....amazing how you just change the design of the building to suit your theory.




Also do YOU honestly think everything would fall straight down without impacting other parts of the structure


Here's an idea. See if you can find a photo of a hat truss sitting on top of the debris pile. Shouldn't be too hard, after all nothing fell on them....
edit on 24-9-2014 by Flatcoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: AgentSmith


why do you fail to see that building exploded in front of your eyes and there was nothing "progressive" about it. Only an idiot would look at those pictures and claim the building simply "collapsed" . Who cars if it was a few seconds longer than free fall? It was still a lot less time than it would have taken if the building was left on its own to collapse without using explosives.


I fail to see it because you're wrong, why do you fail to see that? Not only can you physically see what is happening, but as long as you have a background in physics you can understand what is happening?

Only an idiot? What level of physics are you qualified in?

You admit now that they collapsed 'a few seconds' slower than free fall? But of course this doesn't matter, pesky details huh?

What qualifications do you have to say that it collapsed at a speed requiring explosives? Did you get your knowledge from a 'truther' site or is this from your background in physics and/or construction?

Neither I nor anyone else I know in real life with a background in physics or construction has a problem with what happened, yet the only people I have ever met offline who are on your side of the fence openly admit that they have no relevant qualifications or experience and it's just 'obvious', or they parrot crap from truther sites. How it can be 'obvious' to someone that has no idea what they are talking about I really don't know... As soon as I start talking to them and putting forward questions or ideas that require independent thought, without their Internet connection and truther sites to help them they stutter and mutter they don't actually understand. Hence a reason why I seldom bother to take part in online conversations anymore. Everyone think's their an 'expert' thanks to Google and some forum and I have little time for such people.

I do however, get irritated when I see people spouting off like their an authority on things that they clearly have no understanding of and keep moving the goalposts (like 'a few seconds slower than free fall' suddenly being an adequate substitute for claims based on 'free fall speeds').

The whole free fall thing really is an excellent example of the wild eyed, frothing at the mouth, fist thumping attitude one seems to see a whole lot of because how anyone can miss what's blatantly in front of their face for THIRTEEN YEARS because it gets in the way of their hypothesis (not theory, HYPOTHESIS at the most) is a prime example of how people's emotions have removed all logical thinking from their brains.

I can only assume that because I have little interest in the politics and emotional aspects of the event at this level of discussion, and more of a scientific interest, that I am not plagued by this debilitating condition.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

The trusses didn't but there is sorry was a floor slab in the core or are you saying the workers flosted to the stairs, toilets, kitchens & lifts in the core area.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Flatcoat

The trusses didn't but there is sorry was a floor slab in the core or are you saying the workers flosted to the stairs, toilets, kitchens & lifts in the core area.




dont suppose you want to try again and actually make some sort of sense ?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Will I type s l o w l y, will that help you of course there was a floor slab in the core area not the same as the office floors but there was a slab, now is that simple enough even for YOU to understand



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   



I fail to see it because you're wrong, why do you fail to see that? Not only can you physically see what is happening, but as long as you have a background in physics you can understand what is happening?


My lack of experience does not exclude me from the right to question things. Am I too much of a commoner to be allowed in discussion? Too bad. You can't answer the question... beat it. I already know the OS, it is of little service to batter those with questions. If you don't care, don't post.



Only an idiot? What level of physics are you qualified in?
grade 10. Lol. More than my lack of knowledge in physics, I know when I am being lied to and it starts here:


“19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a “pancake” fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense.”


That story is total horse snip. It took 14 months to even start investigating and we were already committed to war by then. The 2 lead investigator co-wrote a book on how their investigation was hampered by politics and even contemplated filing obstruction of justice charges. The 9/11 commission would NOT be admissible in court. If you think I am wrong take it to court.



You admit now that they collapsed 'a few seconds' slower than free fall? But of course this doesn't matter, pesky details huh?


It was a consistent speed from the top down.



Neither I nor anyone else I know in real life with a background in physics or construction has a problem with what happened, yet the only people I have ever met offline who are on your side of the fence openly admit that they have no relevant qualifications or experience and it's just 'obvious', or they parrot crap from truther sites. How it can be 'obvious' to someone that has no idea what they are talking about I really don't know... As soon as I start talking to them and putting forward questions or ideas that require independent thought, without their Internet connection and truther sites to help them they stutter and mutter they don't actually understand. Hence a reason why I seldom bother to take part in online conversations anymore. Everyone think's their an 'expert' thanks to Google and some forum and I have little time for such people.

I do however, get irritated when I see people spouting off like their an authority on things that they clearly have no understanding of and keep moving the goalposts (like 'a few seconds slower than free fall' suddenly being an adequate substitute for claims based on 'free fall speeds').

The whole free fall thing really is an excellent example of the wild eyed, frothing at the mouth, fist thumping attitude one seems to see a whole lot of because how anyone can miss what's blatantly in front of their face for THIRTEEN YEARS because it gets in the way of their hypothesis (not theory, HYPOTHESIS at the most) is a prime example of how people's emotions have removed all logical thinking from their brains.

I can only assume that because I have little interest in the politics and emotional aspects of the event at this level of discussion, and more of a scientific interest, that I am not plagued by this debilitating condition.


It is funny you bring up emotions in a post like that. That entire post did nothing but attack my character. It was personal all the way through. Are you a little butt-hurt?

Scientific interest? Then I am sure you are upset as well that 99% of the debri was hauled off for recycling a year before any inquiry. It upset me too
. I guess it is all theory from here. And despite any of your personal attacks the OS is a really stupid theory About as bad as holograms where you would have to completely ignore the plane everyone saw the OS expects you to not see the building blow up like everyone saw.
edit on 24-9-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

What you don't seem to understand is that there were no floor slabs in the core of the building.


Go to this truther site.

911research.wtc7.net...

Right there on that first page is a schematic of the core columns only. Don't know which floor. But in the core area, you can plainly see where the walkways were, bathrooms, stairway access, janitor closets, etc. And yes, it even shows rentable office floor space inside the core area. This is well known and not in dispute by those that have actually looked for this information.


A progressive collapse as you described would have left the core standing amid the "pancaking" of the floors. But, as always, when OSers are asked to explain this, they just shrug it off with a vague "Well, tons of stuff fell on it....".


Well, you can clearly see that some of the core columns were still standing, for a few seconds anyways, as the dust clears. This also a well known fact of the collapse. there are many youtube clips of this. Just Google "wtc spire". Let us know what you find.

This is indisputable proof that the joist supported floor areas stripped themselves off the core columns in a progressive collapse manner. So I really don't understand where the resistance to accept these well known facts comes from.

All I can say, is that better research may be in order.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

It was a consistent speed from the top down.



SO what's wrong with that?

Should it have slowed down? Sped up? Both? What are you basing your incredulity on?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

It was a consistent speed from the top down.



SO what's wrong with that?

Should it have slowed down? Sped up? Both? What are you basing your incredulity on?


slowed down based on newtons laws

did u even go to school?

so far you have proven english (see pull "it") and physics are not your thing



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

It was a consistent speed from the top down.



SO what's wrong with that?

Should it have slowed down? Sped up? Both? What are you basing your incredulity on?


slowed down based on newtons laws




AH yes.

So you read something and believed what it said. Gotcha.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

It was a consistent speed from the top down.



SO what's wrong with that?

Should it have slowed down? Sped up? Both? What are you basing your incredulity on?



slowed down based on newtons laws




AH yes.

So you read something and believed what it said. Gotcha.



yes ive read newtons laws and believed what he said

you?



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

It was a consistent speed from the top down.



SO what's wrong with that?

Should it have slowed down? Sped up? Both? What are you basing your incredulity on?



slowed down based on newtons laws




AH yes.

So you read something and believed what it said. Gotcha.



yes ive read newtons laws and believed what he said

you?


Yes.

But unfortunately, you don't know how to apply them, and somebody wrote a post on a blog or some such thing saying that the collapse broke the laws of physics, and you believe it.

Here's a hint as to what you're missing :

Every analysis that I've read that says that the collapse defied the laws of physics unless explosives were used depends on one thing that didn't actually happen. They depend on direct and perfect column to column impacts all the way to the ground in order to make their point.

But the thing is, that didn't happen. everyone that has studied the collapses realizes that the column ends must have missed and punched through floors.

Post collapse photos show large sections of ext columns lying on the ground. And video of the core column "spires" proves that they weren't crushed either. People that understand and have studied the collapse mechanics know that this means that no laws of physics need be broken to see the observed collapse times.

This might be new info for you. I suggest you study up a little...



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
But unfortunately, you, lexyghot, don't know how to apply them.

See my post in my thread, that debunks your view on 9/11, aided by the excellent work of Charles M. Beck and David Chandler.

Title of my thread : The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

It has detoriated after page 5, from studying an excellent book its implications, into a bickering war between us doubters of the official story and the usual JREF-forum clones, stubbornly trusting that O.S.
Just as in here.

Who all still seem to think that they can get away with endlessly repeating their brand of the long invalid "pancake collapse" theory.
Even NIST swiftly nullified that stale FEMA-report theory.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Your as bad as the rest want to show were we claim the pancake theory was what initiated the collapse



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Is one allowed to use common sense in analyzing the damage observed at WTC?

If so, common sense makes it very obvious that burning office furniture cannot have caused what damage was observed.

Molten iron for 90 days? Office furniture?

Lateral ejection of massive pieces for hundreds of feet? Office fires? Puhleeze.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Is one allowed to use common sense in analyzing the damage observed at WTC?



Why would common sense trump fire science and structural mechanics?


If so, common sense makes it very obvious that burning office furniture cannot have caused what damage was observed.



Fire science and building codes requires that steel buildings have their columns and floor supports have fire protection. Therefore, it is important to understand that fire can indeed collapse steel structures. Denial of this cannot be supported logically.



Lateral ejection of massive pieces for hundreds of feet? Office fires? Puhleeze.


The fires didn't result in that. Nor did it actually happen as you seem to believe - ejection.

The ext columns tipped outwards after the floors were stripped off the angle iron that supported them. this is well known and not really a matter of debate anymore amongst those truthers that have taken an honest look at post collapse photos.



posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Care to explain the wtc fire in the 70s then?

By your logic it should have collapsed then

Right?

reply to: lexyghot



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join