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.

 

Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

page: 13
64
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



originally posted by: cheery1
If the "theory" of the pancake was true as is the "claim" then surely the "supposed" lighter load above would have stayed mostly intact as it rode the pancaking down..?



Exactly why do you think that?


What I mean is.. in order for Z Bazant's (whom most "o.STORY" liners seem to quote) THEORY to be correct..
The (lighter) load from above "the impact area" was the pile-driver that "drove" the pancaking effect..
Sorry.. This Does Not Compute...
The top of the towers disintegrate (Turn to Powder)... where is the so-called "pile-driving force..."???

On a lighter note.. Here is one (of many) example discrediting this theory..
youtu.be...

Goyim




posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Composite I made from 2 photos on my computer. FEMAphoto_WTC - 362.jpg and FEMAphoto_WTC-349.jpg

Both photos are from the area of north tower.

Link to 362:

www.septclues.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: cheery1
The (lighter) load from above "the impact area" was the pile-driver that "drove" the pancaking effect..


But the damage done to both towers was not the same....


The top of the towers disintegrate (Turn to Powder)...


No it did not.... again, why do you think it "turned to powder"?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

A lot of the pans should be torn but they should still be there,


We have photos of them. So they are there.


not "shredded" which I personally would accredit with blown,


Why choose the most outlandish option without evidence?


You can claim that I am ignoring the floor pans posted to fit MY preconceived notion, but not knowing where the photos were taken, and which building they were from is leaving my notion in the realm of very realistic.


None of your notions are realistic. they reject the simple explanation and rely on fantasy.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Ahh.. Nice try Brucie eh eh..
How about taking the whole post.. not just the part that suits you..



originally posted by: cheery1
What I mean is.. in order for Z Bazant's (whom most "o.STORY" liners seem to quote) THEORY to be correct..
The (lighter) load from above "the impact area" was the pile-driver that "drove" the pancaking effect..
Sorry.. This Does Not Compute...
The top of the towers disintegrate (Turn to Powder)... where is the so-called "pile-driving force..."???

your answer:


But the damage done to both towers was not the same....

LOL!! Yet they "All" fell the same.. didn't they Bruce..

Your next answer:



No it did not.... again, why do you think it "turned to powder"?

My only answer to that is.. Have actually seen ANY footage of the O.P..??

Care of GOYIM
(& PROUD OF IT)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: cheery1
LOL!! Yet they "All" fell the same.. didn't they Bruce..


How else do you think they could have fallen?

Yes, which is how I know it did not turn to dust.... you obviously have not seen it!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

A lot of the pans should be torn but they should still be there,


We have photos of them. So they are there.


not "shredded" which I personally would accredit with blown,


Why choose the most outlandish option without evidence?


You can claim that I am ignoring the floor pans posted to fit MY preconceived notion, but not knowing where the photos were taken, and which building they were from is leaving my notion in the realm of very realistic.


None of your notions are realistic. they reject the simple explanation and rely on fantasy.



No I don't believe that the collapse would "shred" 18-16 gauge metal. It would tear it up, not shred it.

Evidence??? Bring it back to the crime scene and we can talk about evidence.

It is not realistic to wonder if the pieces of floor pan found were from up in the towers of 1 and 2 or from the buildings that were crushed below?? 6.5 million square feet of floor space. Almost all of that required metal floor pan. The few hundred feet that were posted is not an answer.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Double
post


edit on 2-12-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

No I don't believe that the collapse would "shred" 18-16 gauge metal. It would tear it up, not shred it.


That's acceptable



It is not realistic to wonder if the pieces of floor pan found were from up in the towers of 1 and 2 or from the buildings that were crushed below??


Yes, it's not realistic to wonder if the photos are representative of the entire area. In the photos provided, torn up floor pans are easily identified. All but the most ardent activist would find this as acceptable evidence that the floor pans are there. I really don't understand your mindset when you question this fact.


6.5 million square feet of floor space. Almost all of that required metal floor pan. The few hundred feet that were posted is not an answer.



Actually, it IS to those that are open minded about evidence.

A closed minded activist wouldn't. Instead, they would construct a silly claim such as you're making, namely that the photos provided aren't enough. And then demand proof that the photos are from 9/11 and not from somewhere else.

It's a silly game you're playing. Why?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I will ask again. Find me a floor pan in the rubble.




This is what you wanted. "A" floor pan.

You were given several.

Now that's not enough?

Like I said, it's a silly game you're playing. Everyone can see it.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

That looks like floor pans. I obviously can't ask which building those are from, or do you know?


And here you admit that they are floor pans, but are still seemingly looking for any reason to reject their validity.

Anyone, who's NOT an activist, would just show some integrity, admit that they learned something that they didn't know before, and get on with the next thing, and never return to this line of questioning.

Can you show any integrity?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

If what seems obvious, was actually true - the concrete was blown out of the building


This just you, torturing reality. Some of the dust is concrete, there is no denying that. But a rational person would admit that some is also drywall and insulation dust, and just plain ole dust.

You have zero evidence that a large percentage of the concrete was expelled. We know why you want this claim to be valid too. You want to claim that since nearly all of the concrete in the floors was expelled, that proves that CD, PLUS it means that there wasn't enough weight for the collapse to continue.

Of course, your thinking is so shallow as to be laughable. Activists like you would have the others believe that those responsible for blowing up the towers would be so stupid as to set charges to blow up all the floors and floor pans.

but why would anybody with enough expertise to set these charges see a need to do this? Bazant showed that it was a trivial exercise to prove that it was not necessary. Would your perps be this dumb?

Only someone like an activist could propose something this stupid, and be expected to be taken as a serious researcher.



We are looking for millions of square feet of floor pan. They would be a major portion of the debris.


Who says they weren't?

And why would all of them be visible, and not buried along with all the other rubble? We can only see what's on top.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot



Yes, it's not realistic to wonder if the photos are representative of the entire area. In the photos provided, torn up floor pans are easily identified. All but the most ardent activist would find this as acceptable evidence that the floor pans are there. I really don't understand your mindset when you question this fact. 


Your answering a rhetorical question. A few photos of a small area are NOT representative of the entire area. This isn't an opinion poll.


It's a silly game you're playing. Why?


The fountain of powder. The floor pans are approaching my suspicions in reverse. There is nothing that makes sense to describe the fountain spewing from the towers. What ever the powder was made of was heavy as it descended quickly.

Drywall? No. Very fine powder,

Vermiculite? There may be some but any partition wall built since the mid 80's wouldn't have used that. Maybe even before then.

Spray on fire insulation? Very light stuff when reduced to powder and OS claims that it was sprayed on very thin and even void in many cases.

Those are not something someone who is uninfluenced by the OS would come up with. If there was a poll showing the pictures of the fountain and the 3 selections you gave to describe it with concrete added to the list, I am very confident concrete would win hands down.



Like I said, it's a silly game you're playing. Everyone can see it.


everyone can see that I made a mistake giving the impression that a few floor pans in a couple of photos would rule out a fountain of concrete. And now they can see rabid exploitation.


 Activists like you would have the others believe that those responsible for blowing up the towers would be so stupid as to set charges to blow up all the floors and floor pans. 


I don't think that those that blew up the towers were really too concerned with what was or was not discovered. There was a full narration of the event within hours of the collapse. The second tower had not even fallen and there were already reports on OBL coming over the radio. The physical evidence was expedited off the property.

Even though nobody in history has seen a building that size be demolished, the MSM and government did not even suspect additional explosives used by terrorists. Even though the appearance of the collapse looked nothing like anything ever seen, it was of no interest to investigators. Get the evidence out was the first order of business.




You have zero evidence that a large percentage of the concrete was expelled. We know why you want this claim to be valid too. You want to claim that since nearly all of the concrete in the floors was expelled, that proves that CD, PLUS it means that there wasn't enough weight for the collapse to continue. 


That is a reason why I keep pushing this issue and it is the same reason you keep denying the possibility. Which is a double standard. NIST did not prove that global collapse initiation is what brought down the towers, the only tried to prove that it was possible, hypothetically. In other words, fill in the blanks as scientifically as possible to conclude that the OS that took the US to war against 2 nations for, was possible.

You are so desperate to hold onto a fashionable theory that you will claim all that dust was from drywall and insulation.... maybe a little concrete.




edit on 2-12-2014 by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Spray on fire insulation? Very light stuff when reduced to powder and OS claims that it was sprayed on very thin and even void in many cases.



I thought you were construction savvy. 80 pounds of concrete and 80 pounds of fire proofing both come in the same size bag.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs




Segment 3: Building 7!

The most suspect situation of that historical day...
The Smoking Gun in many people eyes...

The building that the BBC said came down, a good 10 minutes before its actual "collapse"...
The building that was "pulled" according to Larry Silverstein...

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."




This is the one I have told everyone for years, but recently, watching the whole thing, and watching the various interviews with firefighters and police. The term "pull" in my mind, was used as meaing "we pulled the emergency personnel off the building, or to stop rescue attempt." Basically they just let it burn till it collapsed because they didn't want anyone else to die. That is my belief.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA


I have found the location of the floor pans in the top of this photo. South East corner of the North Tower.



I can give you the GPS coordinates if you like.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

A few photos of a small area are NOT representative of the entire area.


You originally asked for "A" photo. Now you want more. Why the change?



There is nothing that makes sense to describe the fountain spewing from the towers. What ever the powder was made of was heavy as it descended quickly.


There was no fountain. the concrete, drywall, and insulation dust were forced straight sideways out the windows. Only a fool (or an activist, uninterested in honestly representing what happened) doesn't recognize, after viewing a video or 2, that the dust went straight sideways out the windows, and that the dust nearest to the space where the buildings were just occupying gets sucked downwards as the roof passes downward. That';s reality.

So now the dust settled quickly, in your opinion? Was it too quick? What experience do you base this on?


Drywall? No. Very fine powder,

Vermiculite? There may be some but any partition wall built since the mid 80's wouldn't have used that. Maybe even before then.

Spray on fire insulation? Very light stuff when reduced to powder and OS claims that it was sprayed on very thin and even void in many cases.


But all this DID get crushed and pulverized, right? So it's in the dust. You cannot deny this.


Those are not something someone who is uninfluenced by the OS would come up with.


Everyone in the construction trades - like I was at one time - recognizes that drywall, concrete, and spray on fire insulation would make a lot of dust in the collapses.



everyone can see that I made a mistake giving the impression that a few floor pans in a couple of photos would rule out a fountain of concrete. And now they can see rabid exploitation.


Your mistake is becoming a truther in the first place.



I don't think that those that blew up the towers were really too concerned with what was or was not discovered.


They wouldn't do it in the first place cuz it's stupid and unnecessary. Like you cut out, Bazant trivially proved that once started, collapse progression was inevitable.

And to shine a light on the stupidity of your argument, if anything, these guys would want to take measures that the concrete DIDN'T get blown out the windows, cuz the weight is needed. This is the flip side of your argument. You want to claim that concrete was blown out the windows with explosives, but the perps that you fantasize about wouldn't want that, so they wouldn't DO that.

But you can't see the dead end that you're painting yourself into. Hilarious.


The physical evidence was expedited off the property.


Yes, it was hauled off so that repair work could begin. The problem you're gonna have with THIS argument, is that it was hauled away to a landfill and inspected by engineers contracted by FEMA. They looked at all the steel and had the workers separate those that showed interest. There's still a lot at JFK airport.





That is a reason why I keep pushing this issue and it is the same reason you keep denying the possibility.


I deny the possibility cuz there's no evidence of explosives. None. The truther argument begins in ignorance and proceeds circularly through incredulity, appeals to perfection, and strawman arguments without even a moments hesitation. All truthers do it.


NIST did not prove that global collapse initiation is what brought down the towers, the only tried to prove that it was possible, hypothetically.


The NIST report stands as the best explanation. There's zero evidence of explosives. None.


In other words, fill in the blanks as scientifically as possible to conclude that the OS that took the US to war against 2 nations for, was possible.


The NIST report didn't take us to war. It's an engineering report.


You are so desperate to hold onto a fashionable theory that you will claim all that dust was from drywall and insulation.... maybe a little concrete.


You claim to be in the trades, right?

What is more friable?

Drywall or concrete?

Insulation or concrete?

Here's what the dust was made of:

www.usgs.gov...



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

Unlikely in my opinion
****************
Girders +
Elevation +
Timing +
***
Aerodynamics +
-----
Light rail +
Intelligence +
Fire =
Extremely un-likely 3 fell without Help.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: lexyghot




You originally asked for "A" photo. Now you want more. Why the change?


I addressed that. And if you can't understand the change then you don't understand the question. But don't let that stop you...



There was no fountain.


Ok





the concrete, drywall, and insulation dust were forced straight sideways out the windows. Only a fool (or an activist, uninterested in honestly representing what happened) doesn't recognize, after viewing a video or 2, that the dust went straight sideways out the windows, and that the dust nearest to the space where the buildings were just occupying gets sucked downwards as the roof passes downward. That';s reality.


If dust was sucked down , it was down the centre, not the outer ring. The outer part was falling simply due to gravity.




So now the dust settled quickly, in your opinion? Was it too quick? What experience do you base this on?


The dust never settled quickly. It spread across Manhattan. The majority of the concrete would have settled when it hit the ground and it's finest material was kicked back up and spread into the dust cloud that spread out.


Everyone in the construction trades - like I was at one time - recognizes that drywall, concrete, and spray on fire insulation would make a lot of dust in the collapses.


I'm in the trades currently, and no, I would not recognize what you claim without attributing the bulk of the matter in the fountain spewing out of the building, to concrete. Yes there can be other material like you mentioned but but it would look nothing like what it did if the concrete was removed and it (concrete) was simply falling with the building and kicking up dust when it hit the ground. The steel connections would not have waited for the concrete to be turned to powder before they let go on to the next slab. Maybe when the concrete was sandwiched at the bottom there would be enough energy to do that but not on the way down.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on personally.




Your mistake is becoming a truther in the first place.


This is true. Ignorance WAS bliss...



They wouldn't do it in the first place cuz it's stupid and unnecessary. Like you cut out, Bazant trivially proved that once started, collapse progression was inevitable.


NIST cooked up results to show that progression could possibly be inevitable. Did not prove any conclusion


And to shine a light on the stupidity of your argument, if anything, these guys would want to take measures that the concrete DIDN'T get blown out the windows, cuz the weight is needed. This is the flip side of your argument. You want to claim that concrete was blown out the windows with explosives, but the perps that you fantasize about wouldn't want that, so they wouldn't DO that.


If explosives were used, there would be no need for the weight. Any resistance would be removed with explosives, not down force because... they used explosives.

did you even think before you wrote that?


But you can't see the dead end that you're painting yourself into. Hilarious.


It was all a dead end the moment justice was obstructed and crucial evidence removed from the scene.



Yes, it was hauled off so that repair work could begin. The problem you're gonna have with THIS argument, is that it was hauled away to a landfill and inspected by engineers contracted by FEMA. They looked at all the steel and had the workers separate those that showed interest. There's still a lot at JFK airport.


Are you suggesting that it was mostly examined?


Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1  


Meh, what difference does it make, the mayor says it would have been a waste of time...


New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed.

But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11.

"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."



9/11 Research

Speaking of the age of computers, when are we going tp get a visual simulation of NIST collapse theory?


I deny the possibility cuz there's no evidence of explosives. None. The truther argument begins in ignorance and proceeds circularly through incredulity, appeals to perfection, and strawman arguments without even a moments hesitation. All truthers do it.


There is no evidence of explosives because it was never investigated. After a decade and millions spent on reports on the event, the OS is no different today than it was on Sept. 11, 2001. Terrorist, planes, fires, collapse. End of story.



The NIST report stands as the best explanation. There's zero evidence of explosives. None.


Only because explosives were not investigated or even suspected by officials.



The NIST report didn't take us to war. It's an engineering report.


Captain Obvious!!




You claim to be in the trades, right?

What is more friable?

Drywall or concrete?

Insulation or concrete?



Not the concrete compared to the other 2 examples. Which one was there much more of?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: lexyghot

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I am very confident concrete would win hands down.





The concrete inside the WTC was sandwiched in between a a layer of carpet or vinyl and a floor pan. Turning it to dust and geting it out from between the two, and out the windows, is not going to be easy. Unless roll up the carpet plant, explosives in the concrete and then roll the carpet back out....What ? It could happen.

The fire proofing on the other hand would be much easer to turn to dust and get and get it out the windows. The bottom of the floor pans and all the trusses had a layer of fire proofing at least 3/4" thick.



When one floor cascaded on to the next, the fire proofing under the floor was knocked off and exited the building along with the 500,000 cu/ft of air that had to get out of the way of the falling floor. That is the most logical explanation for what we see happening in the videos.

The steel covered with fire proofing included 3 sides of the exterior columns, spandrel plates outside and below the floors inside, trusses and under side of the floor, and all columns /girders in the core.

Before the collapse almost all the steel was covered with fireproofing. after the collapse almost none of the steel was covered with fire proofing.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join